8 Months Later and Still Waiting for a Buyer: 925 N. Wolcott in West Town
We last chattered about this modern 3-bedroom unit at 925 N. Wolcott in West Town in December 2008.
Read our prior chatter and see the pictures here.
This development was designed by Studio Dwell and Ranquist Development.
Since we last chattered about it, the unit has been reduced by $35,000.
The listing says the third bedroom is being used as a dining room. It also has luxury finishes, including Arclinea, Miele, and Sub-Zero.
RCR Realty still has the listing. See more pictures here.
Unit #104: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, duplex, no square footage listed
- Sold in July 2004 for $470,000
- Was listed in December 2008 for $579,800 (plus $19,800 for parking)
- Reduced
- Currently listed for $544,800 (plus $19,800 for parking)
- Assessments of $187 a month
- Taxes of $5,855
- Bedroom #1: 14×14
- Bedroom #2: 10×11
- Bedroom #3: 12×10
Gorgeous unit, shitty location and terrible for transit.
$350k
I believe the purported third bedroom is behind the plasma TV and fireplace in one of the photos and is most certainly being put to its best use as a separate dining area. To me this is just a swank 2/2.
Is it just me, or does the 2nd sink in one of the bathroom photos look like a urinal trough, straight outta Wrigley? Ew.
it’s only like a ten min walk to the blue line.
i looked at this place last fall. you can walk to the blue line off division or walk to chicago and take the bus, and walk to all the bars/restaurants/shops on division, so it’s not a bad location — if you don’t wan to live in lincoln park. anyway, it’s a nice unit but the room sizes are pretty small. i remember we thought we’d have to buy all new, smaller scale furniture. i recall the building had significant reserves, which was a plus.
That’s a pretty sucky walk in February, not that you can’t afford a cab when you can afford a place like this, but still!
This has to be one of the worst abuses of the “parking costs extra” listings ever. Like they’d really sell the place without the parking.
They’ll be lucky to get $500,000 with or without the parking space.
unless you’re a California fruitcake, only on really shitty days is 10 min bad . though looking at it this is probably 15 min for me, still to call it terrible for transit is an overstatement. and the location isn’t bad either. the street looks nice and there are plenty of good restaurants on division, not to mention lapasidita’s on ashland which is the best late night taco stand in the city x3. Not saying the price is good, but this location (ukranian village?) is not shitty.
These units are having some serious moisture intrusion issues according to one of the owners. If you’re considering purchasing here make sure to interview other unit owners and read the minutes of the HOA meetings going back as long as possible.
Caveat Emptor!
Off-topic, but must note…
Best. Pictures. Ever.
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/4312-N-Clarendon-Ave-60613/unit-1200/home/13393773
yaaa, I don’t think so…390k, if they are lucky…and if you don’t believe me, check back when it actually sells. i bet it sells closer to 390k, than the current asking price of 565k.
“take the bus”
Lolz. Dude if I’m dropping over a half mill for a place you’d best be assured I’m not taking the bus.
If you drop half a million I doubt you’d have much room in the budget for much more than a bus card.
We sold a similar one of these 07 for $630k. Was on Paulina, not on Wolcott, but same builder, same type of building. The market has dropped, but not by 40%. I say around 525k with the parking.
“Gorgeous unit, shitty location and terrible for transit.”
Wrong on all counts.
There are far better 3/2 units in the area for less.
Location is very good though LP fans will never accept that.
You can get to the loop from here faster than from much of LP. Like Wrightwood and Clark for example.
“homedelete on July 19th, 2009 at 8:34 am
If you drop half a million I doubt you’d have much room in the budget for much more than a bus card.”
You’re projecting again. Do you pay your rent with your Link card, HD?
Hey Bradford, whatever it takes to keep my powder dry…
Sorry Bradford, no one can afford a 500k condo. And if you can you are probably an idiot knifecatcher or using some sort of exotic financing that will cheat the taxpayers.
“And if you can you are probably an idiot knifecatcher or using some sort of exotic financing that will cheat the taxpayers.”
Get real, Burt. If you can “afford” a $500k condo, you’re either both of those things, or mom&dad gave you $250k. Or I guess you could be a rich foreigner, but I don’t beleive such people exist–and if they do, they don’t want a condo in Chicago.
there are plenty of people who can afford a $500k condo. It’s just that most already own a $500k property and aren’t in the market for a second one.
“homedelete on July 20th, 2009 at 8:03 am
there are plenty of people who can afford a $500k condo. It’s just that most already own a $500k property and aren’t in the market for a second one.”
That’s one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read here.
Is $500k some sort of magic number where people buy a property and never move? Any nobody is moving from a $400k condo to a $500k condo?
Bradford, you are one of the dumbest people ever to post on a Monday morning. Are you not familiar with absurdly low number of condo sales in Chicago? let me guess, you think that $500k condos have nothing to do with the reason they aren’t selling. Go back under the bridge from where you came, and that’s an order.
Woah come on homedelete….quit drinking the kool aid. Have you been again out with Steve-O?
homedelete on July 20th, 2009 at 8:03 am
there are plenty of people who can afford a $500k condo.
“homedelete on July 20th, 2009 at 8:16 am
Bradford, you are one of the dumbest people ever to post on a Monday morning. Are you not familiar with absurdly low number of condo sales in Chicago? let me guess, you think that $500k condos have nothing to do with the reason they aren’t selling. Go back under the bridge from where you came, and that’s an order.”
Do they have wifi at the welfare office now? How are you posting?
Bradford is humorous in his detachment from reality. He really doesn’t seem to see any problem with 500k condos and median incomes in Chicago.
Everyone makes 200k in Bradford’s world and everything is fine and dandy.. there is no housing bubble and there are no Americans in Baghdad! Nothing to see here folks, move along.
See, that’s the thing Bob and HD, – there’s no problem with $500k condos. The problem is with $4XXk condos that are priced at $5XXk+, like this one. But you and the other Cridhater have-not hobos just draw a line in the sand when it comes to the lavish, grandiose places costing $200k+. Down with the Bourgeois!!!
Vive l’immobilier dépression!
What were $400K+ condo sales like prior to the real estate bubble? What were they like during the bubble and what are they like now?
Don’t delude yourself into believing that the market will keep those gains.
Chicago and the rest of the country is going back to rental equivalence. In fact a discount to rental equivalence to reflect the decreased flexibility of owning vs. renting.
Home ownership was never really supposed to be an investment or a primary means of support in retirement. All it was during the bubble was a leveraged asset class that many speculated with. It really should be nothing more than pure utility (roof over one’s head).
The mere fact that stupid upgrades like granite and stainless steel returned more than their cost basis shows the insanity of the bubble.
When you have qualified accountants/other professionals in cities like Cincinnati packing up shop and moving west to LA to rehab and flip houses, make a ton more money and live the good life using their hands vs their education, it shows the insanity of the bubble.
What do you consider rental equivalence? Median home price = 3x median income? When was the last time that was true?
What do you consider rental equivalence?
Median home price = 3x median income?
When was the last time that was true?
Housing prices tracked incomes for many years until the bubble. that chart has been liked to a couple of times in the last year.
“When was the last time that was true?”
Do you have the link handy?
no I know but anon(Tfo) probably does
no I don’t but anon(Tfo) probably does
I think this is it?
http://bp3.blogger.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SGEvq-VRRXI/AAAAAAAACMQ/HMwTAKlcLzg/s1600-h/HarvardMedianRatio.jpg
“What do you consider rental equivalence?”
All in costs of ownership generally reflecting the costs to rent a substantially similar place.
3x or 4x median income is a little flawed in that interest rates really do significantly impact the total cost of housing ownership and places like California have historically had and maintained much higher ratios of median price over median income.
Put simply if an investor/owner can’t break even from renting their unit out they paid too mcuh for it.
no its the OHED housing chart o
Well the Harvard JCHS has their data updated through Q1 2009.
For Chicago it was 3.1.
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/son2009/index.htm (Excel Appendix Table W-4)
“Do you have the link handy?”
Not fully updated, but the source for that line graph, and with 105 metros, instead of 6 (or whatever):
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/son2007/metro_affordability_index_2007.xls
Here is a direct link to the data through 2009Q1 – it’s on tab W-4
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/son2009/son2009_appendix_tables.xls
Amazing to think that if you make $100k a year (a respectable income) then $300k should buy a cozy sfh house in a decent neighborhood; or in nicer neighborhoods – a 2/2 or unit in a three flat.
In 2006 $300k bought a crappy 2/1 condo conversion in a decent ‘hood that flooded, but unfortunately, today is listed for $330k and has been languishing on the MLS for 9 months.
It can. Just not in the city.
Why not in the city?
And the ratio for Chicago 2009Q1 is 3.3 not 3.1. Same as it was in the 90s.
What Chicago neighborhoods do you define as decent and nicer?
“Here is a direct link to the data through 2009Q1 – it’s on tab W-4”
The median house in metro Akron is under $35,000? Wow.
I think those Q1 numbers reflect, in substantial part, that nothing was selling except foreclosures/distressed sales in amny markets.
Not surprising. Ohio has turned into a shit hole and people with the means are leaving in droves, which just perpetuates the downturn there.
4 of the 10 fastest dying cities are in Ohio.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/04/economy-ohio-michigan-biz_cx_jz_0805dying.html
“The median house in metro Akron is under $35,000? Wow.”
Akron is really not much more than a southern hub or burb of Cleveland. Aside from Columbus (college town) and Cincinnati (not heavy mfg and never really heavy industry) Ohio is getting decimated.
Look for Ohio, especially northern Ohio, to look like an extension of Detroit in the future. The pace of the decline of the rust belt has been put on steroids with this economic downturn.
I think a more meaningful number would be the median income of homeowners instead of just median income.
I also don’t think rental equilvalence is sound either. When I buy, I know I am paying a premium to have my own place. The places I would consider renting I would NEVER considering buying. I would rent a 2 bedroom/1 bath and no parking or central air, but would have never bought a similar unit. Most people buy nicer places than what they rent.
Most well developed urban areas and high demand suburbs generally are going to have housing prices that are higher than the median income and I think it is because the median income numbers take inot account people who would never buy in the first place.
Russ – You are correct. Check out table W-6 on the link above.
The monthly income of owners is twice that of renters.
“Russ – You are correct. Check out table W-6 on the link above. ”
I think you mean A-1, at least on the Q1-09 chart; W-6 is a chart of mortgage payment amounts.
Yes you are right, A-1. My brain is not working well today!
Sold!….for $515K. jc wins the prize!