41% Off the 2007 Price in Avenue East: 160 E. Illinois in Streeterville
This 1-bedroom at 160 E. Illinois, or Avenue East, in Streeterville recently came on the market.
It is bank owned and is listed for $200,600, or about 41%, under the 2007 purchase price.
From the pictures, it appears that the kitchen is intact but it has white appliances alongside granite counter tops.
The listing says there are marble floors in the master bath.
I can’t quite figure out if parking is included in the listing or not. All it says is: “PLUS RENTED PARKING SPACE.”
At 1071 square feet, it is the larger 1-bedroom floorplan in the building. That includes a den.
Is this a deal for the square footage and location?
Robert Shutay at Realty Executive Ambassador has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #1805: 1 bedroom, 1.5 baths, 1071 square feet
- Sold in November 2007 for $483,500
- Lis pendens foreclosure filed in July 2009
- Bank owned in June 2010
- Currently listed for $282,900
- Assessments aren’t listed (Unit #1205, also for sale, lists them as $576 a month which includes cable, doorman, heat, a/c)
- Taxes of $6594
- Central Air
- Washer/Dryer hook-up in the unit
- Can’t tell if parking is included. But it’s available in the building for $25,000 extra
- Bedroom: 14×12
- Den: 10×9
At first I was like, “Wow, this is nice” but after 5 seconds and realizing the first pictures were of the community rooms and seeing the actual unit pictures then I was like, “Oh, this is not so nice”.
I agree with Wilson, on first glance I was definitely fooled by the common area pics, and thought to myself, wow, what a nice one bed. As i got through the pics I saw the actual photos, and well, eh, cookie cutter one bed with good square footage in a desirable location, especially for an in-town place.
200 with parking included is a fantastic deal, i’d say. 280k is not that great of a deal. seems like there are a lot of nice places downtown in the 250-300k ballpark.
well at least this place has the 1.5 baths
price isn’t too far off for the location I guess
There’s no way this is more than 1,000 sq ft. I added up the den, bedroom, kitchen and living room and it is less than 700; so is there 360 sq ft of bathroom and hallway? That’s like a 30×12 room missing from the unit. BLEH.
There’s no way this is 1071 sq ft. This is allegedly bigger than my apartment yet it seems smaller. My second bedroom is bigger than the den and my kitchen and living room/dining room combo is bigger too. They must be including the outdoor area, the hallway outside the elevator, and the unit’s percentage ownership of common areas too.
Where’s anon(tfo) to back me up on this? Is he on the slopes of Killington or Vail?
I’ve been in these units. Fair price for location/size if parking is included. I wouldn’t pay $300+
I believe these were in the high 290’s plus parking back in 2005 pre-construction-I went on opening day!
This owner obviously bought after they raised prices a number of times
This is decently priced given it’s a little cookie cutter-ish and lacks character.
“There’s no way this is 1071 sq ft.”
1205 is listed with the same square footage but there’s a floor plan showing that it – too – clearly isn’t 1071 square feet.
are you including the balcony in your calc? New construction typically includes it. Also, they measure for the perimeter-ext walls
OK I figured it out and it’s total BS.
1071 sq ft is roughly 32 x 33 feet.
I figured the unit was about 32 feet long if you add together the 22 feet from the living room and the 10 feet length of the media room/den.
The 33 feet wide is roughly the 12 feet of the bedroom plus the 14 feet of the living room plus about 8 feet of the den making length that’s roughly 33/34 feet.
So 32×33 is roughly 1071.
However, this is total BS calculations because:
1 – it includes roughly 55 or 60 sq ft of balcony space ~5×11 ; and
2 – the calculation is based upon a sq but the unit is not a perfect square. There is an approximately 8 or 9 foot by 22 feet long area that extends beyond the den (after factoring in the 4×6 bathroom) included in the calculation that isn’t part of the unit. So I figure 9×22 = 198 feet minus the 24 sq feet bathroom = 178 feet that isn’t part of the unit.
So 1071 minus 178 for the calculation error and and 55 feet of balcony and the grand total is roughly:
838 sq feet.
Now, that sounds about right.
too complicated for a boring unit
bathroom: It lacks a shower stall, has hollywood lights, and a really cheap faucet. I thought this was early-2000 type stuff, not something you’d expect from a 2007 project steps from Mich Ave
“The 33 feet wide is roughly the 12 feet of the bedroom plus the 14 feet of the”
Bedroom is 15 wide apparently. Not seeing anything outrageous here, like everyone else they are including balcony and exterior walls. The living room is pretty spacious for a 1 bedroom + you get a decent den. 1205 has much better pics.
Nothing aggreious except that this is not a 1,000 sq foot unit. mi to 800’s something sounds about right. I live in a 1000 sq ft unit right now an my place is larger than this. I have a 15×24 living room/dining room combo and two 12 x 14 bedrooms and a kitchen and it seems more spacious than this place with a weird ‘den’ aka hole in the wall.
website shows the fp w/dimensions (if this hasn’t already been established)
“Nothing aggreious except that this is not a 1,000 sq foot unit”
I’m pretty sure 1000 is correct. I’m too lazy to measure it in detail, but just drawing a square around the unit amounts to 37.4 x 36 = 1346 sqft. (based on the 14 foot wide living room, which sounds right).
It’s just the way they measure and it’s a decent way to compare modern high rises since they all do the same and floorplans tend to be pretty similar. It’s the best “standard” we’re gonna get.
The den would actually make a great dining room or a small pet room (with a gate) or an office.
I agree with everyone above regarding sq footage but the measurements are consistent with all new buildings built around 2007
Well, actually, 600 N Fairbanks prided itself on “real square footage.” The units are actually exactly what they say (not ext. wall measurements)
$280K for a one bedroom with $500+ assesments still seems too high. I know that the area is expensive but it still seems like a stretch for a small inflexible place.
the biggest story in 2010 will be that one bedrooms have finally met their match. Two bedrooms are the new one bedroom.
So, if this is the new “standard” (measuring the from outside walls and including balconies) what is the actual price per square foot when you don’t use those nonsense calculations…actual liveable interior square footage?
nah, can’t measure off that. All new buildings are off. You must simply go by the state square footage
“the biggest story in 2010 will be that one bedrooms have finally met their match. Two bedrooms are the new one bedroom.”
I disagree because of the following:
1) two bedrooms have higher assesments and taxes
2) 1000 sq ft one bedroom, imo, is nicer than a 1000 sq ft two bedroom
3) the addition of a den or dining room can make a one bedroom unique and more livable
I think in 2011 you will see more accurate price vs value. Good assets will continute to run stable or increase. Toxic assets will depreciate or start price wars to establish a *hard* bottom.
What has been “running stable?”
“Sold in November 2007 for $483,500
Lis pendens foreclosure filed in July 2009”
This genius purchased after it was obvious serious cracks were appearing in the housing market. I’d bet given the quick time to lis pendens they used a low downpayment loan. No way this schmuck came to the table with 50-100k.
Just because an idiot used a high LTV loan to pay an egregious price during the boom doesn’t mean .59*egregious price is necessarily a good deal.
In fact you can find real 2/2s in River North in modern highrises with parking included for under 300k these days.
Yes I agree that a 1,000sqft 1/1.5 is probably a better layout, but at the end of the day is nicer layout more important than fundamentals (so long as the layout doesn’t _suck_)?
“What has been “running stable?”
Nothing if the sellers out did themselves with the property in the first place (2nd homes, 99% financed, etc..).
But just as Bob mentioned with 2/2 in RN w/parking for less 300K, if you could find one with reasonable assesments, a decent floor plan/appliances, *healthy building*…that run stable or appreciate.
Or G, a 3000 sqft+ luxury, not-on-tracks home, lets say East of Halsted, between North and Belmont, for under 1M. That will run stable.
“but at the end of the day is nicer layout more important than fundamentals (so long as the layout doesn’t _suck_)?
Me, personally? I’d take character and layout over fundamentals anyday. But, I enjoy architectural design and influence, columns, curved walls, offsets, etc…originality to an extent.
Some people probably prefer a two bedroom split floor plan, each 10 x 10, with two identical bathrooms.
“Or G, a 3000 sqft+ luxury, not-on-tracks home, lets say East of Halsted, between North and Belmont, for under 1M. That will run stable.”
Actually there have been homes on or near LSD featured on here that fit that criteria that aren’t selling. So much for your idea of “stable”.
That’s the most specific definition of stability I’ve ever seen. ELP/ELV is NOT the real estate market. Especially not the 1M market. That’s just a snapshot of how the area’s elite are doing. You could look at France in early 1789 and say that because teh first and second estates were doing OK, the country was stable. Little did the first two estates understand what the massive third estate had planned for them a few months later.
“#a-fed on December 27th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
“but at the end of the day is nicer layout more important than fundamentals (so long as the layout doesn’t _suck_)?
Me, personally? I’d take character and layout over fundamentals anyday. But, I enjoy architectural design and influence, columns, curved walls, offsets, etc…originality to an extent.
Some people probably prefer a two bedroom split floor plan, each 10 x 10, with two identical bathrooms.”
“Or G, a 3000 sqft+ luxury, not-on-tracks home, lets say East of Halsted, between North and Belmont, for under 1M. That will run stable.”
Not really. I agree with Bob. These are falling in price just like everything else. In fact, there have been some highlighted on this blog that have been on and off the market for several years. The fact is, if they only lowered the price it would be sold.
So, no, I don’t consider this area to be “stable” either. It’s better than others- but the decline is still going on. It hasn’t bottomed yet.
” It hasn’t bottomed yet.”
Good properities have already hit bottom. Toxic assets will continue to depreciate. I stated a rough example in LP to prove that if you own a 3500 sq ft brick sfh built with modern features and luxurious features and have paid less than 750k for it, chances are it’s worth it, or more. If you bought a 500k 2/2 with 1K assesments, 8 ceilings, you are probably not it great shape.
“Where’s anon(tfo) to back me up on this? Is he on the slopes of Killington or Vail?”
Sorry, 1071 isn’t crazy, if you’re including the balcony.
Now, including the balcony *is* crazy–Does Groove have a 7000 sf house (including yard)? Or could he turn it into 7000 sf by building a deck over the whole yard, making it the equal of a balcony? Of course not, that’s absurd, and so is counting a balcony in the SF of a condo–this ain’t Hong Kong.
Not only is he calling the bottom, but it also sounds like he’s predicting a bi-furcated market where good properties are limited in supply and expensive….and toxic assets worth much less.
“a-fed on December 28th, 2010 at 9:49 am
Good properities have already hit bottom.Toxic assets will continue to depreciate. I stated a rough example in LP to prove that if you own a 3500 sq ft brick sfh built with modern features and luxurious features and have paid less than 750k for it, chances are it’s worth it, or more. If you bought a 500k 2/2 with 1K assesments, 8 ceilings, you are probably not it great shape.’
“Not only is he calling the bottom, but it also sounds like he’s predicting a bi-furcated market where good properties are limited in supply and expensive….and toxic assets worth much less.”
He’s also got the strawman of the 3500 sf newcon/gut-reno brick LP SFH for under $750k. Yeah, anyone who a buildable lot in Lincoln or Alcott attendance areas for ~$200k is going to be okay.
3,500 sq feet of new construction anywhere other than plainfield or marengo is impossible to find. SO yeah, that is a straw man.
I know I posted it elsewhere today, but SFH price and supply increases were heavily impacted by condo equity and EZ financing. A bifurcated market is impossible in this situation. There seems to be a great deal of “I’m qualified, I bought, so the market is fine” mentality from the knife catchers these days.
“3,500 sq feet of new construction anywhere other than plainfield or marengo is impossible to find.”
Not if you count the deck!
Seriously, tho, you exaggerate the other way.
In taking a quick look at what is in the city (164 SFHs claiming 3500+ under $750k), I came across this:
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1511-W-Cortez-St-60642/home/35649938
Which looks like a super cool space.
It is a cool space but Cortez is an uninterrupted two block long stretch E of Ashland to Milwaukee (with cul-de-sac) that ain’t the greatest surroundings.
“Cortez … ain’t the greatest surroundings”
Yeah, yeah. That’s why I didn’t say anything about the location.
here is the floor plan if anyone is interested
its no longer linked on their website but still on their servers, a little snooping and it was easy to find
http://www.avenueeastcondo.com/popup_plan_avenue_plan5.html