Rehabbed 3-Bedroom Rowhouse Sells In 6 Weeks: 2501 N. Racine in Lincoln Park
We last chattered about this rehabbed 3-bedroom rowhouse at 2501 N. Racine in June 2011.
See our prior chatter here.
It had previously been a 2-bedroom and sold for just $630,000 in February 2011 before being renovated into a 3-bedroom with all new kitchen and baths and then listed for $899,000.
It went under contract in 8 days and sold within 6 weeks for $875,000.
The rowhouse, built on a 19×84 lot, had no backyard but there was a deck over the highly sought after 2-car garage.
It also had central air.
You can see what it looked like BEFORE- here.
Ryanne Bumps at @Properties had the listing. You can still see the interior pictures here.
2501 N. Racine: 3 bedrooms, 3.5 baths, no square footage listed, 2 car garage
- Sold in April 1993 (no price given)
- Originally listed in October 2009 for $849,000
- Reduced
- Sold in February 2011 for $630,000
- Was listed in June 2011 for $899,000
- Under contract within 8 days
- Sold in August 2011 for $875,000
- No Assessments
- Taxes of $9958
- Central Air
- Bedroom #1: 16×13 (second floor)
- Bedroom #2: 11×11 (second floor)
- Bedroom #3: 12×14 (second floor)
- Family room: 16×18 (lower level)
Love it. If the location were different, I’d live in such a place for the next 40 years (but I suppose it would be $200k or so more expensive). Congrats to the new owners.
“Love it”
Even with the open kitchen?
And, where is the refrigerator?
Good job on the renovation and pricing. Whoever did the renovation knew exactly what they were doing, got the job done in 6 months and were able to probably make an ok profit – but just so you amateur flippers don’t start getting ideas, the profit isn’t as high as you think:
The renovation probably cost about 100k (if they did it “in-house”).
The carrying costs were about 10k
Closing costs on both ends were probably 7k
So the flippers probably made 80k in 6 months – not bad at all in retrospect – but there were a lot of risk they took.
Commission was 43k
“Even with the open kitchen?”
The open kitchen/dining/living room is just fine, provided that there is another room for the t.v. (as is the case here). The main level of this place looks great for family living and/or entertaining – especially given the absence of a t.v. (though I grant that I might feel differently were I a big t.v. sports viewer). In an ideal world, the t.v. room would also be on the main level (and not the basement), but this seems like a nice enought set up. I just don’t want to cook and eat with a view of the room in which I’ll eventually spend and hour or two in front of the tube, and I don’t want to see/smell my kitchen when I’m sitting on the couch and watching the tube. Being a condo-dweller, we only have one living area, which is why it was/is important to not have it be shared with the kitchen/dining areas.
“So the flippers probably made 80k in 6 months – not bad at all in retrospect – but there were a lot of risk they took. ”
risk is in the eye of the beholder.
the biggest risk they took was with the $110K they invested (assuming they had carrying costs to begin with…maybe only $100K according to your estimates).
made an annualized return of 145%. (80K profit on $110K in improvements in 6 months). maybe as high as $160% if there were no carrying costs.
i would call that pretty damn good.
I agree with clio, except that I think his numbers are off solely based on the fact that it was under contract in 8 days and the difference in list and final was only 2.7%. This flipper knew what he was doing.
Great flip…very Jeff Lewis. Good choice in materials and well executed. Flipper deserves his or her profits.
Chibuilder – I don’t understand. Honest question – what numbers do you think are more accurate (ie how much do you think were the total costs)?
clio, the renovation number. However at first glance the reno looked most if not all cosmetic. It does appear the kitchen and possibly baths were completely redone… no arguments.
wow that’s a tremendous price. I wonder how much equity the buyer put down.
I also wonder how high-end properties like this will fare after Frannie’s allowable loan-limits decline on Sept 30, 2011.
http://www.freddiemac.com/singlefamily/news/2011/0718_loan_limits.html
Wojo, for your question to be at all relevant, the buyer of this (or a comparable) property would have had to put down more than $400k. I’m confused.
“Wojo, for your question to be at all relevant, the buyer of this (or a comparable) property would have had to put down more than $400k. I’m confused.”
Right. Chicago’s loan limit is $417,000 right now- and expected to fall for some properties however.
We were never in the “highest” bracket. That was only Hawaii, parts of California and New York.
well, my wonderment was twofold: how much did this buyer put down and what impact will the reduction in loan-limit size exert upon such buyers in the future.
Sabrina I take your point to be: reduction of conforming loan size won’t exert much impact b/c Chicago’s loan limit is already only 417k.
I didn’t know that. All the same, the question of what the reduction of conforming loan limit size portends for re prices may be worth a crib chattering.
“All the same, the question of what the reduction of conforming loan limit size portends for re prices may be worth a crib chattering.”
Of course it will have an impact- at least for anyone buying up to $417,000. It won’t impact us as much as, say, the Bay Area (that is about to get crushed hard when it adjusts lower) but if you’re looking to sell that 2/2 at $425,000- it is about to get harder for a buyer to get a loan to buy your place (unless they have a larger downpayment.)
I’m sure in a few months, as sales fall even further, the Tribune or Crain’s will do an article talking about how the lowering of the limit has impacted sales etc. etc.
Conforming limits stay the same but the fha limits drop (bob has the figures memorized). And the down payment requirement raises a tad. So basically the maximum amount fha buyer will be affected a tad, and the rest of fha buyers will have to come up with a few extra grand for the down payment. The changes are not major in my opinion but some areas with lots of $300k+ low payment fha loans like park ridge, albany park, various suburbs will be affected, and other areas with fewer 300k+ sales not as much. In some areas like park ridge it seems like 75% of all properties in the 300$k range are low down payment fha but that’s just my anecdotal reseach and not hard facts.
“And the down payment requirement raises a tad. So basically the maximum amount fha buyer will be affected a tad, and the rest of fha buyers will have to come up with a few extra grand for the down payment.”
No they won’t. You can still get a mortgage loan of up to $365,700 after October 1st with only 3.5% down. FHA will continue to affect the market.
The stats I showed the other proved FHA has a default rate around 60% higher than prime loans. FHA is THE catalyst keeping the house of cards propped up.
Everyone is making it seem that jumbo loans are so hard to get or that the interest rates are so much higher. Russ can join in on the topic – but I never found jumbo loans that hard to get – I don’t think that this will create a huge impact on the market.
“We were never in the “highest” bracket. That was only Hawaii, parts of California and New York.”
Not quite–The max “high limit” number (outside HI, which tops at $793,750) is $729,750, and applies to 14 counties in CA; 4 in CO; DC; Blaine County, ID; 2 in MA; 5 in MD; 3 in NC; 12 in NJ; 10 in NY; Pike County, PA; 3 in UT; 10 in VA; and Jefferson County, WV.
Yes, PA and WV are just in there as part of the NYC and DC metros, but the funny thing is that Fairfield, CT doesn’t max out ($708,750), while Pike, PA does–it’s totally nonsensical.
Pike County, PA is now part of the NYC metro area.
“Pike County, PA is now part of the NYC metro area.”
Yeah, I know, but are typical houses in Pike County $750,000?
“Yeah, I know, but are typical houses in Pike County $750,000?”
With limits of $750,000 it’s only a matter of time before prices work their way up to that threshold. That’s government intervention for you.
“With limits of $750,000 it’s only a matter of time before prices work their way up to that threshold. That’s government intervention for you.”
I often read this blog but never post. However, I couldn’t bite my tongue at such a stupid comment. Homedelete, you’re an idiot. I started to type an explanation of why your post is asinine, but I then decided that it would be silly to dignify your stupid post with a reasoned response. I’ll just ask you one question: if the gov’t raised the max conforming mortgage limit to $750K in Paris, IL, would the housing prices rise in Paris, IL 500% to meet the new limits? If your answer is yes, you’re a bigger moron than I thought. Please think before you post. Thanks.
Thanks for all of your efforts on the blog, Sabrina. Keep up the good work.