We Love Lofts With Wraparound Terraces: 1750 N. Wolcott in Bucktown
This 2-bedroom in the Signature Lofts at 1750 N. Wolcott in Bucktown just came on the market.
It is an authentic loft with timber ceilings and exposed brick.
The kitchen has stainless steel appliances and granite countertops and is open to the living space.
The bedrooms are fully enclosed for added privacy.
The loft is a corner unit and has a wraparound terrace on two sides of the unit.
On one side the terrace runs alongside the concrete wall of the Bloomingdale trail- which was formerly a 2.7 mile rail line.
You can watch a video on this unique future city park here. (I can’t wait for this to open!)
The other side of the terrace is in the back of the building.
The loft has central air, washer/dryer in the unit and heated garage parking (along with a second space available for another $10,000.)
Unit #104, also a 2/2 on the same floor in the building, is currently under contract at the price of $399,000 (includes parking) but it doesn’t have the wrap-around terrace.
This unit last sold 10 years ago for $351,500.
Will they be able to sell for over $100,000 more in 2011?
Wesley Walker at Jameson Sotheby’s has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #105: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1300 square feet
- Sold in August 2001 for $351,500
- Currently listed for $459,000 (includes parking)
- Assessments of $302 a month
- Taxes of $4613
- Central Air
- Washer/Dryer in the unit
- 2nd parking space available for $10K
- Bedroom #1: 14×13
- Bedroom #2: 11×10
Seems like good space, and one of the better units in the building. Finishings are somewhat dated and the “country” theme is not exactly how I’d stage it.
397000 in recorded mortgages, maybe the 2nd mortgage as of April 2011 is really just a line of credit; it’s a boeing employee credit union making that 2nd mortgage. I’ve notice a lot of credit unions chasing yields these days, alliant CU is everywhere too.
“397000 in recorded mortgages”
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Return-of-20-Home-Down-tsmf-506551024.html;_ylt=As8ojng2bIbkJBiP.i1NFRC7YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2cXFpNjNwBHBvcwMxMgRzZWMDdG9wU3RvcmllcwRzbGsDcmV0dXJub2YyMGhv?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=7&asset=&ccode=
Return of 20% Home Down Payments Looms
The Mortgage Bankers Association, in written testimony, says the proposed QRM definition “is so restricted that 80% of loans sold to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac over the past decade would not meet these requirements.” — (boo-hoo!)
According to the National Association of Realtors, drawing upon national savings rate data, “it would take 9.5 years for the typical American family to save enough money for a 10% down payment and closing costs, and fully 16 years to save for a 20% down payment and closing costs.” — (translation: prices will have to come down then)
“A 10% or 20% down payment requirement for the QRM means that even the most creditworthy and diligent first-time homebuyer cannot qualify for the lowest rates and safest products in the market,” an NAR statement reads, adding that such a move will “be placing homeownership out of reach for millions of potential buyers and crippling an already fragile housing recovery.”
If fully implemented, other Dodd-Frank related provisions could mean limiting the mortgage payment to 28% of gross income and limiting all debt to 36% as part of the mortgage qualification process.
“If fully implemented, other Dodd-Frank related provisions could mean limiting the mortgage payment to 28% of gross income and limiting all debt to 36% as part of the mortgage qualification process.”
I thought this was the case now.
Well this all points to people not being able to afford to buy which equals skyrocketing rents for years and years to come -so if you have money to buy an investment property -now is the time to do it. Seriously, look at most of europe – the vast majority of people rent and richest people in europe are the property owners!!!
45/45 I think (ask russ) is the FHA rules. WHich is why you see a tremendous number of $300,000 – $410,000 sell for as little as 5% down. One house in my area I watched I though for sure would sell in the $300’s, but it sold for $431 with a $407k mortgage, which is a roughly $24,000 down payment. Imagine if the buyer actually had to come up with $86,000 for the down payment. The buyer would have waited a few years until he had $60,000 rather than $24,000 and the home would have sold for $300,000 instead. unfortunately, many of the $100k – $200k home get snapped up prety quickly by investors and are rehabbed and sold a few months later in teh $300-$00k range, and I’ve often seen again, it’s the FHA buyer with the maximum monthly payment and little down who buys them because they are ‘new’.
“Vlajos on July 29th, 2011 at 11:41 am
“If fully implemented, other Dodd-Frank related provisions could mean limiting the mortgage payment to 28% of gross income and limiting all debt to 36% as part of the mortgage qualification process.”
I thought this was the case now.”
The 45/45 is CRAZY. in that example above, the $431,000 house with a $407,000 mortgage at 5% interest has a PI of $2,185; plus $500 taxes/insurance = $2,685 per month. $2,685×100/45= ~$6,000 gross monthly income, which is a salary of $72,000 a year. That’s craziness, a salary of $73,000 a year, no other debts, and a mortgage payment of $2,685 per month. Take home on a $72,000 salary is a little more than $4,000 a month (on average) and $2,685 of that pays the mortgage. And yet people are willing to do this type of stuff all the time, STILL.
“limiting the mortgage payment to 28% of gross income and limiting all debt to 36% as part of the mortgage qualification process”
I’m not sure that solves anything. We have a HHI of between 200 and 250k and no debt. So, I should be able to spend between 4700 and 5800 on a mortgage? That is almost double what should be allowed. People simply don’t save enough. Allow people to spend 5k a month on a mortgage, and they will. They need to be forced to save, otherwise they simply won’t.
FHA is getting its teeth filed down but slowly. Limit falls to ~360k on 10/1 and will fall each year as the stat its limit is based on falls. Wish the same could be said for conforming loans.
Also, I’m sure other product will emerge to “solve” the 20% down dilemma. Some loophole similar to a piggy back mortgage, or some brand new product.
“A 10% or 20% down payment requirement for the QRM means that even the most creditworthy and diligent first-time homebuyer cannot qualify for the lowest rates and safest products in the market,” an NAR statement reads”
Right. Because they shouldn’t! Why should they qualify for the “safest” products. They aren’t the “safest” of borrowers. It’s amazing that they don’t realize that’s a GOOD thing. Well, I’m sure they realize, but its the NAR after all…
“chukdotcom on July 29th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
People simply don’t save enough. Allow people to spend 5k a month on a mortgage, and they will. They need to be forced to save, otherwise they simply won’t.”
That’s actually not true. You are ignoring marginal propensity to save.
Being on the Bloomingdale trail in a couple years might be nice. Now? Not so sure. IINM, it’s still owned by the railroad and I’ve seen/read that owners along it have lots or problems with taggers, as well as a number of homeless living on it. Since it appears this unit’s terrace is just over the wall from it, that could be a security/safety issue.
“You are ignoring marginal propensity to save.”
I’m ignoring it because the MPC for most people is close to 1.
This is a nice unit. A bit dated, but I love the fireplace and yard! I’m curious to see what 104 goes for, because this looks MUCH better. (I couldn’t imagine all my windows looking out on the wall of the former train)
If 104 went under contract fast, I don’t see why this wouldn’t.
The vast majority of renters in Europe do so because it’s cheap, not because they can’t save. Most of them rent with some kind of government intervention, whether it’s through price setting or payment assistance. In most European countries citizens of any means are allowed to apply for government housing assistance, it’s not just for the poor. My old boss (VP of local subsidiary of major international bank) rented an amazing place for just 300 euros a month, and it was totally legal.
I know that every seller thinks “my property is unique and therefore it’s worth more than the market dictates,” but I don’t think that $459k is even in the ballpark for this. Nice outdoor space and proximity to the Bloomingdale (and by proximity, I mean that people can watch you sleep) notwithstanding, more than $350/sqft is just not realistic for a place like this, especially with the crappy transit access.
The 2001 sale price plus $30k or so is probably a reasonable price for this one, and that’s supported by the recent sale and the property under contract in that building.
I wouldn’t mind paying a slightly higher rate if i cannot put 20% down. There just has to be some reasonable scaling. If I can put 15% down, cover closing and still maintain an emergency fund on the side, I shouldn’t be ding by servere percentage points because I don’t want to raid said emergency fund to get to 20%.
“I shouldn’t be ding by servere percentage points because I don’t want to raid said emergency fund to get to 20%.”
Well, whatever the ding is, it should be commensurate with the risk. There is plenty of historical data to show defaults by people with x% down. That risk is measurable, and should be factored in accordingly. Maybe it means 10% rate mortgages for people with 5% down, and 5% rate mortgages for people with 20%. I have no idea the spread, but someone can calculate it.
@chukdotcom — on this we agree. its been years for me, but it seemed like 20% got the best rate and 19.5% down would get the worst rate.
Yes, and it is the same with credit scores. 740, no problem. 739, you will pay a higher rate. There are hard cut-offs. Not sure this is wise, unless the bands are sufficiently small enough (15-19% down get one rate, 10-14% get another, 720 to 739 FICO, 740-759 etc).
There is a big risk difference between 5% down and 19% down. Currently, I don’t think that is being properly priced.
chuk: they have that data and the factor it in. thats the FHA mortgage premium insurance. however, the problem is that they rely (and the monolines did too during the heyday) on historical defaults. the current crisis took those old assumptions and threw them out the window.
right now the studies have shown that being 20% or more underwater, *combined* with one life event (such as divorce, job loss, medical emergency or one other unexpected monetary event like special assessment, funeral, or even in some cases, something like a major car repair) is the greatest of all indicators of default.
So, the banks are sort of overcompensating and requiring 20% equity giving them a 40% buffer when the life event happens, and they always do.
“however, the problem is that they rely (and the monolines did too during the heyday) on historical defaults.”
I still think those RELATIVE rates of default are accurate. The problem is, due to ZIRP, even the 20% down guys are being way underpriced (as is everyone else). Given the current state of housing, you should not be able to get a 30 yr fixed loan for 4%.
ZIRP is causing even the “best” borrowers to not be properly priced for risk. Just because the 10 year is yielding under 3%, it doesn’t mean that people with 20% down have the appropriate risk priced in.
As you have pointed out, even the 20% down guys are RISKIER now than they were in the past. Yet, they are being given a rate well below the historical average.
don’t forget that 90% of mortgages are resold to fannie/freddie, who are also underpricing risk. The banks are not really lending the money, they’re creating it out of thin air through a ledger on a balance sheet, and then selling the loan to fannie/freddie, and lord only knows where they’re getting the money from (us) and retaining the .25 or .5 point servicing rights. the federal governmetn isn’t pricing risk in, they just want to ensure mortgages are being made.
JJJ: “Crappy transit access”? It’s about a 7-minute walk to the blue line. I’m not crazy about the idea of Bloomingdale Trail walkers throwing trash onto the deck, but I don’t see how transit is a problem here.
“JJJ: “Crappy transit access”? It’s about a 7-minute walk to the blue line.”
You’ve forgotten that on cc, walking more than a block and a half is “too far”, as a quarter mile is a 30+ minute walk.
No wonder people are obese if 7 minute walk is considered inconvenient!
JJJ, look at the unit under contract. Maybe I am on my own…but I think this unit is FAR better. We don’t know what it is under contract at…but it gives me a feeling this place may be worth asking…even if we don’t think so.
“Well this all points to people not being able to afford to buy which equals skyrocketing rents for years and years to come”
Right, because back in the 60s/70s when these lending standards were the norm, rents just skyrocketed. LOL.
Paying over $400K for a 2 bedroom in Bucktown is foolish – especially when it’s only 1300 square feet! Especially for this ground level place on the Bloomington Trail which is NOT ideal (at this time). Total lack of privacy and safety issues. Good luck with this one. $353 per square foot is not the going rate for this. (Do the math – it would mean that a 2,000 square foot place should go for $700K+.
Nothing says gangsta like furnishing your terrace like its an outdoor restaurant!
“table for two, yes we have you covered three times over”
==especially with the crappy transit access=
Besides the blue line, it’s less than a ten minute walk to Damen, Ashland, North and Armitage buses and, more importantly, the Clybourn Metra station which has two lines and is an 8 minute ride to Ogilvey. During rush hour you don’t have to wait more than few minutes for a train even if you don’t bother with the schedule.
Of course, some hipster types might be interested in the “historical” aspect of this building – not too far from the Chicago location of “The Real World” a few years ago!
Never underestimate “intangibles” when analyzing the mind of a home buyer!