3-Bedroom Vintage Living in East Lakeview for Under $500,000: 537 W. Roscoe
This 3-bedroom at 537 W. Roscoe in East Lakeview just came on the market.
This building was constructed in 1923 and has 26 units. There’s no parking or elevator.
This unit has some of its vintage features including the original moldings.
It has unique French windows in the living room which also has 3-exposures and built in bookcases, storage and wine refrigerator.
Like many vintage units it has a full-sized dining room.
The kitchen has white cabinets, stainless steel appliances, quartz counter tops and a white subway tile backsplash.
The master bedroom has French doors and fits a king bed.
It also has two full baths, one which has a tub and the other has a walk-in shower.
This unit has the features buyers are looking for including central air and washer/dryer in the unit. It doesn’t have parking, however.
The listing also says this is in the Nettlehorst school district.
Given the lack of inventory for 3-bedrooms priced under $500,000, will this sell quickly?
Samuel Kahn at Luxury Living has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #2: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1500 square feet
- Sold in September 1991 for $120,000
- Sold in November 1994 for $170,000
- Sold in August 2014 for $352,500
- Sold in April 2017 for $447, 500
- Currently listed at $475,000
- Assessments of $640 a month (includes heat, gas, exterior maintenance, lawn care, scavenger, snow removal)
- Taxes of $7673
- Central Air
- Washer/dryer in the unit
- No parking
- Bedroom #1: 13×15
- Bedroom #2: 13×12
- Bedroom #3: 13×12
- Dining room: 15×12
- Kitchen: 10×12
- Living room: 21×13
This is really a 2BR + Den (zero chance the cribroom is 13×12 – way to go realatard). Pretty cool place with well chosen improvements by the 14 seller, wine fridge non with standing. Not a fan of the MBR of the kitchen
Another case of purchase price + realator fees = listing price = HAWT
As much as I like it, @ $100k down + 3200/mo + very limited upside for capital appreciation, renting seems like a much better choice.
Immaculate…with the exception of that raised vessel sink and wine fridge — both relatively inexpensive fixes.
However, owners will lose money on this “investment”, no doubt about it. They’ll be lucky to receive an offer that is above what they paid for it a few years back, and then think of all the lost funds in transaction costs.
I envy the generation that made money off of investing in and a nice home and saw returns on upgrades.
It’s pretty small (check the room sizes), and most of the vintage charm is gone except for that one cute bathroom. No parking, either, which isn’t surprising considering the location. However, parking is pretty easy to find in nearby garages.
The fact that it’s a front unit in a courtyard helps a bit, but it’s just too small for most families (which is why this one must be moving out). Could see an older couple moving in once the kids are gone, or a young couple that stays a few years until kids get bigger, but price might need to go down.
floor plan please
it’s under 500 because it’s 1500 sq. ft
I think it’s fine but make money on it no way.
“it’s under 500 because it’s 1500 sq. ft”
You mean “1500” sf. I think it is closer to 1300. Might be less.
This place is in the other streetside section of the courtyard complex, and has a floorplan:
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/545-W-Roscoe-St-60657/unit-3/home/12772845
It’s not identical, but pretty close, and gives to overall idea. It is less than 60′ front to back, and about 22′ wide, with some cutouts. Sounds more like 1250 than 1500.
“It’s not identical, but pretty close, and gives to overall idea. It is less than 60? front to back, and about 22? wide, with some cutouts. Sounds more like 1250 than 1500.”
1250sf+Looks like theres a bit of a back porch + storage space in the basement+??? = 1500sf
Wonder what they tried to sell it for 11 Mo ago?
“Wonder what they tried to sell it for 11 Mo ago?”
What’s hilarious is the realtor.com page for it has it at 1800 sf.
Zillow sez it was listed for $449k.
Anyone listening during this pandemic is flat up desperate to sell. The reason all of these pandemic listings are at least 6% higher than their sold price a few years ago is the owners likely have no skin in the game and are just trying to get out & cover their transaction costs.
Not likely to happen.
“I envy the generation that made money off of investing in and a nice home and saw returns on upgrades.”
Outside of the housing bubble years, when have you made much money only owning for 3 years?
We’ve debated this on this blog for 13 years.
The basic fee for a realtor is 5-6%. And then you have closing costs, transfer fees etc. It adds up to around 10%. Regular Chicago real estate appreciation over the last 85 years is 1-3% a year.
So if you only own it for 2 or 3 years, you’re unlikely to make any money on that purchase.
Stay in a home for 20 years and your odds are better, although that’s no guarantee either as neighborhoods change, and sometimes not for the better. Or you haven’t made the upgrades etc.
“Anyone listening during this pandemic is flat up desperate to sell.”
Desperate or “life goes on”?
Having kids, job transfer, divorce, death. None of that stops because we are in a lockdown over the coronavirus.
“Regular Chicago real estate appreciation over the last 85 years is 1-3% a year.”
Incorrect.
““I envy the generation that made money off of investing in and a nice home and saw returns on upgrades.”
“Outside of the housing bubble years, when have you made much money only owning for 3 years?”
@Sabrina, sure this is a bad example — 3 years ownership one would expect a loss. But we have seen plenty of properties on here owned for 10+ years where the seller did not make anything.
I’m with JohnnyU on this one. It’s hard to justify purchasing just about ANYTHING near downtown Chicago. That is, unless you happen to be in the position where you can purchase something that you’ll confidently live in for 15+ years. Even still, the opportunity cost (compared to moderate risk investments) is just SO significant.
““Regular Chicago real estate appreciation over the last 85 years is 1-3% a year.”
Incorrect.”
Commence Goal Post moving in T-5…4…3…2…1…
Check out the S&P 500 returns. Outside of major economic crises, it is returning 10% – 30% per year!
I could spend three years in a condo and break-even, or double my principal in the stock market in the same period of time.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2526/sp-500-historical-annual-returns
“We’ve debated this on this blog for 13 years.
The basic fee for a realtor is 5-6%. And then you have closing costs, transfer fees etc. It adds up to around 10%. Regular Chicago real estate appreciation over the last 85 years is 1-3% a year.
So if you only own it for 2 or 3 years, you’re unlikely to make any money on that purchase.
Stay in a home for 20 years and your odds are better, although that’s no guarantee either as neighborhoods change, and sometimes not for the better. Or you haven’t made the upgrades etc.”
How does this jive with the market being HAWT?
What kind of gains justify a HAWT market?
“How does this jive with the market being HAWT?”
It has nothing to do with the “market.” It’s the reality of Chicago and Chicagoland real estate. Until the housing bust, prices had never gone down in the Chicagoland area although they were flat for about 5 years in the mid-1980s.
Chicago has pretty standard and steady price increases. Like I said, it’s been about 1-3% a year, on average.
Of course, certain neighborhoods have seen more appreciation and others have seen less or depreciation. Neighborhoods and towns change. We’ve discussed this ad nauseam on this blog too.
Lincoln Square was the hottest Chicago neighborhood during the housing bubble with over 400% appreciation.
Where’s the next “hot” neighborhood? I would put my money on Woodlawn and South Shore. Great housing stock. Near transportation. Low prices. Flippers can make money there.
“That is, unless you happen to be in the position where you can purchase something that you’ll confidently live in for 15+ years. Even still, the opportunity cost (compared to moderate risk investments) is just SO significant.”
That’s a choice each person needs to make. The person who buys for a decade builds equity. The renter does not. It’s not insignificant and it’s the reason that home owners, even in cities/states with little appreciation are vastly more wealthy than renters.
You cited returns of the S&P 500 as a better investment. It has easily beat housing in Illinois over the course of the last 85 years. But the difference is leverage.
Buy a $100,000 house and put down $10,000. In 10 years, that house may have appreciated to $200,000. You are now walking away with a much bigger amount of cash than the person who put the $10,000 into the S&P 500. They would do okay too, but they’re not walking out of it with $100,000 gains.
“Regular Chicago real estate appreciation over the last 85 years is 1-3% a year.”
“Incorrect.”
What is it? It’s probably much lower now as it’s an old stat and probably didn’t include the housing bust numbers.
“I could spend three years in a condo and break-even, or double my principal in the stock market in the same period of time.”
Can you get 20:1 or 32:1 leverage on your money in the market, AND live in your brokerage account?
It’s not that simple.
“What is it?”
It’s about CPI + 25 to 50 bps, and it is lumpy, with most of the gains in bursts, with long even more flattish periods.
See, eg, https://www.nber.org/papers/w2393.pdf which covered 70-86, and showed inflation + 30 bps, and the C-S index since Jan-87, which thru Feb-20 is about CPI + 46.5 bps.
Any apparent higher gains are based on a change in mix, size, etc.
“Buy a $100,000 house and put down $10,000. In 10 years, that house may have appreciated to $200,000. You are now walking away with a much bigger amount of cash than the person who put the $10,000 into the S&P 500. They would do okay too, but they’re not walking out of it with $100,000 gains.”
@Sabrina — where in the neighborhoods we discuss on this blog (Lakeview, Lincoln Park, Gold Coast, Wicker) could I double my investment in real estate in 10 years? Show some examples please.
I think you’ve also forgotten that there are at least about $1,500 of lost costs per month in assessments and real estate taxes. That doesn’t include upgrades or maintenance.
“It has nothing to do with the “market.” It’s the reality of Chicago and Chicagoland real estate. Until the housing bust, prices had never gone down in the Chicagoland area although they were flat for about 5 years in the mid-1980s.
Chicago has pretty standard and steady price increases. Like I said, it’s been about 1-3% a year, on average.”
So how do you claim the GZ is HAWT? What metrics are you making to claim this?
“Lincoln Square was the hottest Chicago neighborhood during the housing bubble with over 400% appreciation.”
For an unimproved property? Gonna need a link Vs your say so
“over 400% appreciation”
I’m sure there are places that sold for 4x the last sale in lincoln square.
Indeed, just poking around at *currently for sale* properties, I found this:
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/4853-N-Seeley-Ave-60625/home/13403506
Dec-93 = $111,200
Apr-16 = $387,500
Not 4x, and not just “during the bubble” (tho probably would have fetched more in ’07 than in ’16) but given that I found it on the 2d or 3d currently for sale that I looked at, it’s at least plausible there’s something out there.
That said, my recollection from circa 2000, 2001 is that crapshacks (structurally sound, but basically un-updated SFH) were asking and getting around $350-$400k, and they never went to $1m, nevermind $1.5m. Don’t think a standard lot in LS even ever hit $700k.
my recollection from circa 2000, 2001
I need a present day indicator like the 2001 opening of a nearby Hot Dougs to signal to me which neighborhoods I should invest and live in
I’m sure there are places that sold for 4x the last sale in lincoln square.
“Indeed, just poking around at *currently for sale* properties, I found this:
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/4853-N-Seeley-Ave-60625/home/13403506
Dec-93 = $111,200
Apr-16 = $387,500
Not 4x, and not just “during the bubble” (tho probably would have fetched more in ’07 than in ’16) but given that I found it on the 2d or 3d currently for sale that I looked at, it’s at least plausible there’s something out there.
That said, my recollection from circa 2000, 2001 is that crapshacks (structurally sound, but basically un-updated SFH) were asking and getting around $350-$400k, and they never went to $1m, nevermind $1.5m. Don’t think a standard lot in LS even ever hit $700k.“
Come on, that’s 23 f’years.
Can I use farm land in Elburn or Oswego that generated a 4X return to state that the ‘burbs are HAWT?
For the LS crapshacks, were they teardowns or undergo renovations to reach <$1MM?
If so that’s an apple to oranges comp
KK wondered “…where in the neighborhoods we discuss on this blog (Lakeview, Lincoln Park, Gold Coast, Wicker) could I double my investment in real estate in 10 years? Show some examples please.,,,”
While past performance is no guarantee of future results the attached article shows some Chicago submarkets/neighborhoods that produced excellent RE appreciation from 2013- 2018 (examples: Avalon Pk & Humboldt Pk show approx 200% increases in that 5 yr period).
In answer to KK’s question imo parts of Humboldt Pk will continue appreciating as prospective purchasers who previously would have bought in Wicker Park/Ukie Village/West Town will continue to be comfortable buying in Humboldt Pk
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/June-July-2019/What-Your-Home-Is-Worth/
KK, you have to go to those neighborhoods that haven’t gentrified yet.
East Garfield Park is another one that is on the move. Buy a vintage greystone for cheap. Fix it up. Wait.
Portage Park. Irving Park. But not as “unknown” any more.
You would have to buy a fixer and you might want to wait for foreclosures/short sales but that’s a few years away (if it happens.)
After the 2008-2009 recession, Milkster, a poster on this blog, flew into Chicago from NYC and started buying the cheap foreclosures in various neighborhoods like Portage Park. And boy, she found some doozies. Who can forget her story about the house in McKinley Park (I think? Is that right Milkster) where she and her realtor went into the house and there was no floor in the basement but a big hole in the ground dug there. And they had a flashlight and all of that and ended up running out of there.
Lol.
Stock investing is easier than looking for a diamond in the rough.
Also, the returns that we saw in the 1998-2008 period WERE a bubble. Unlikely to be repeated.
anon(tfo), the stat was for all properties and the condos just soared. You could get a 2/1 for like $125,000 but by the end of the bubble they were selling for $325,000.
“For an unimproved property? Gonna need a link Vs your say so”
We’ve had discussions about this on this blog because there were people posting here in 2010 saying Lincoln Park prices would never decline (they did) and were in denial that Lincoln Square was actually the hottest market of the entire bubble (in terms of appreciation). Maybe it wasn’t 400%. But it was huge.
Lincoln Park, because it had already gentrified, really didn’t do that great during the bubble years. You gained, but it was like 20 or 30%, not triple digits like other neighborhoods.
“I think you’ve also forgotten that there are at least about $1,500 of lost costs per month in assessments and real estate taxes.”
You pay taxes as a renter too. They’re just wrapped up into what the landlord charges you as rent.
Hey- I’m not telling anyone to buy. My husband and I rented for a LONG time (just ask chuk, who used to post on this blog, and complained that I would never buy.) It was cheaper to rent, than to buy, for many, many years. And then it wasn’t. The rents started to rise in the last 10 years, pretty rapidly in some places, and the mortgage rates went down so the balance shifted back to it being better to buy.
The NYTimes has a rent to own calculator where you can put in assessments, taxes etc. and it really does give you a good idea if it’s better for you to rent or how long you have to live in a place if you buy it before it becomes a better deal than renting.
It’s a real eye opener.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html
Also, I’ve told this story before, but I have friends who bought a run down mansion in Wicker Park in 1991 or 92 (can’t remember the exact year) for like $200,000. It was a dump. The neighborhood was awful. Gangs everywhere. Shootings. Crime. But it was a historic home on a big lot.
They spent the next 30 years fixing it up. The neighborhood got much better. Restaurants came. People with kids followed. The gangs (mostly) left the neighborhoods. They spent several hundred thousand dollars restoring the house.
They sold a couple years ago and moved to a warmer climate. Sold for around $2 million.
But the first years were really rough. Living in an up-and-coming neighborhood can be financially rewarding, but you have to stick it out. And not everyone wants to do that. Some people just want to move into the neighborhood that is already safe and beautiful. That’s fine too.
“@Sabrina — where in the neighborhoods we discuss on this blog (Lakeview, Lincoln Park, Gold Coast, Wicker) could I double my investment in real estate in 10 years? Show some examples please.”
Not going to happen in the GreenZone.
But sometimes a neighborhood gets really hot and there can be some really nice appreciation.
That happened over the last 5 years in the West Loop/Fulton Market. There are owners who have made great appreciation there in just the last few years. If you bought in 2010 in the West Loop, you’re likely doing okay. They haven’t doubled in price, but it’s been one of the hot GreenZone neighborhoods.
“Also, I’ve told this story before, but I have friends who bought a run down mansion in Wicker Park in 1991 or 92 (can’t remember the exact year) for like $200,000. It was a dump. The neighborhood was awful. Gangs everywhere. Shootings. Crime. But it was a historic home on a big lot.
They spent the next 30 years fixing it up. The neighborhood got much better. Restaurants came. People with kids followed. The gangs (mostly) left the neighborhoods. They spent several hundred thousand dollars restoring the house.
They sold a couple years ago and moved to a warmer climate. Sold for around $2 million.”
8% annual return gross
Initial mortgage rate was in the 8-9% range
The always nebulous “several hundred thousand dollars”
Bullshit tax of living in a marginal ‘hood
Probably would have done better in Bucktown
@Sabrina — thanks for the calculator.
I tried to be super generic here and plugged in:
$500k purchase price
20% down
Stay 10 years
15 yr mortgage
$600/mo HOA
Home price growth rate of 2%
Rent growth rate of 4%
“If you can rent a similar home for less than $4,043 per month than renting is better.”
I understand your perspective on hitting it big in the up and coming neighborhoods — most people aren’t willing to make those risks / sacrifices however.
Still trying to understand your perspective on why purchasing in the gentrified areas of Lincoln Park / Lakeview / Gold Coast makes sense financially.
Honestly not trying to argue you down here, I just know you have good perspective and would be interested in hearing more 🙂
Btw, Thanks for running such an enjoyable and informative blog!
“the stat was for all properties and the condos just soared.”
WTF? what stat?
“Lincoln Park, because it had already gentrified, really didn’t do that great during the bubble years. You gained, but it was like 20 or 30%, not triple digits like other neighborhoods.“
Time frame?
It didn’t do as well as they weren’t “new”.
From memory peak LP gentrification was 85-95. A lot of the original owners didn’t upgrade prior to the bubble. If they would have thrown in another $300k they would have seen better gains. You seem to neglect this cost in your appreciation calcs
“From memory peak LP gentrification was 85-95. A lot of the original owners didn’t upgrade prior to the bubble. If they would have thrown in another $300k they would have seen better gains. You seem to neglect this cost in your appreciation calcs”
Would they? Not arguing it’s just hard to believe a chicago market ever easily supported ~300K upgrades.2 Actually maybe I’ve confused your comment.
“Would they? Not arguing it’s just hard to believe a chicago market ever easily supported ~300K upgrades.2 Actually maybe I’ve confused your comment.”
If you’re asking if they would, maybe? But that’s not the point I was trying to make
Compare 2 buyers in 1990
Buyer 1 buys in LP new TH for $750k. Doesn’t do any upgrades and sells in 2005 for $900k = 17% increase
Buyer 2 buys in A’ville a home that needs work for $300k. This owner drops $300k into the place and sells for $900k in ’05. Looking at the sales numbers would show that the owners home increased 200%, but in reality it only increased 33% if you add in the capital improvements (Which IMO one should)
I’m not arguing that land values don’t increase faster in marginal ‘hoods because it is/does, its just that I don’t think comparing the price of homes paints a complete picture. Like in Sabrina’s WP example – I don’t think Land prices in WP jumped 900%
“Still trying to understand your perspective on why purchasing in the gentrified areas of Lincoln Park / Lakeview / Gold Coast makes sense financially.”
KK: Is it cheaper than renting? How long will you be in the property?
The calculator takes into account opportunity costs associated with the downpayment and how many years you would have to own the property to make it worth your while.
A lot of people want to build equity. They want to do home remodeling. They want to pay off a property before retirement.
There are reasons to buy.
They may love Lincoln Park and their kids are going to go to school there for 13 years. Do you want to be in a rental for 13 years?
With rents soaring, the reasons to buy have actually gone up in Chicago. But every person has to calculate what is important to them.
If you’re only going to live there 3 to 5 years, you’re rolling the dice and could take a loss. The longer you own, the better.
KK:
You might want to plug some of your criteria into this older calculator. I like it more than the “updated” one that was in the other link.
Because it has that nice graph that literally tells you how many years you’d have to own to have it pan out for you over renting.
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/04/10/business/buy-rent-calculator.html
@ ANON(TFO)
Sabrina say
“anon(tfo), the stat was for all properties and the condos just soared. You could get a 2/1 for like $125,000 but by the end of the bubble they were selling for $325,000.”
Anon(two) replies
“the stat was for all properties and the condos just soared.”
WTF? what stat?
SABRINA DOES NOT REPLY
so instead of the often quoted Occam’s razor
ANON(TFO) how about this
Hitchens’ razor is an epistemological razor expressed by writer Christopher Hitchens. It says that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
“I’m with JohnnyU on this one. It’s hard to justify purchasing just about ANYTHING near downtown Chicago. That is, unless you happen to be in the position where you can purchase something that you’ll confidently live in for 15+ years. Even still, the opportunity cost (compared to moderate risk investments) is just SO significant.”
And it never likely will be non-significant. After the Great Depression they put margin rules in that you can’t speculate with stocks at a rate of more than 50% equity with 25% required at all times.
Compare this with the current mortgage market where you can put down 3.5% equity with 20% being considered conservative.
Even if you had a hard 20% down payment equity as a requirement you’d even then see housing prices collapse. The housing market is set at the margins and by people with bad/poor savings habits, so it will never be priced correctly.
“Even if you had a hard 20% down payment equity as a requirement you’d even then see housing prices collapse.”
If you had a hard 20% down, AND actual property+borrower risk underwriting for the loan rate, THEN you’d have a pretty decent chance of avoiding collapsing (as opposed to downturning) prices–but you’d also have the sort of anemic long term growth in prices that Chicago has seen over the past 50 years.