Buy a 2-Bedroom in Chicago’s First Condo Building: 339 W. Barry in Lakeview
This 2-bedroom at 339 W. Barry in Lakeview came on the market in June 2011.
Built in 1963/1964, and designed by Fridstein & Fitch, the building was Chicago’s first condominium building. Prior to this time, co-ops or rentals were the preferred high rise living arrangements.
“Built on the site of an earlier symbol of luxury—a greystone mansion-like home—on a side street east of Sheridan Road two blocks south of Belmont Avenue, the 26-story tower was designed in the style of Mies van der Rohe. This minimalist architect was best known for his iconic unadorned skyscrapers on Lake Shore Drive north of Michigan Avenue’s “Magnificent Mile” that translated modern office buildings into residential towers. 339 Barry could be thought of as either a tribute or a knock-off, depending on your level of purist admiration.
Perhaps more significant were the construction details. The foundation was said to be substantial enough to support a much taller building and the original central heating-air conditioning system was identical to some of those in downtown office buildings. Window walls in all four directions (although most of the west-facing glass covered solid walls) brought the outside in, so to speak, augmented by open-air balconies. A higher level of sound-proofing than found in similar-size rental buildings also supported the claim for quality features that would appeal to prospective buyers.”
The unit has floor to ceiling windows and east views of the Lake and Lincoln Park along with a balcony.
The kitchen has white cabinets and granite counter tops.
There is carpeting throughout.
While the unit has central air, there is no in-unit washer/dryer.
There is also parking available in the building for $160 a month, but there is a short waitlist.
Listed $38,900 over the 2007 purchase price, will this unit command a premium over its prior sale?
Danielle Dowell at Koenig & Strey Real Living has the listing. See the pictures here.
You can also read about the history of 339 W. Barry here.
Unit #18A: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, no square footage listed
- Sold in July 2007 for $345,000
- Originally listed in June 2011 for $383,900
- Currently still listed at $383,900
- Assessments of $864 a month (includes heat, a/c, doorman, cable)
- Taxes of $3771
- Central Air
- No washer/dryer in the unit
- Rental parking available- but currently a short waitlist
- Bedroom #1: 15×12
- Bedroom #2: 17×10
I’ve wondered about this building. Nice. Wouldn’t take this unit unless the building would permit installation of wood flooring in the living room (I imagine they permit certain kinds). No w/d is rough. All things considered, $300k sounds about right (i.e., 10% off-of-peak pricing).
I have been looking for a new in-town and what is interesting is that I am finding that the major expense in condos is not necessarily the mortgage interest/principal (therefore is not the listing price) – but rather the assessments and taxes. comparing MANY MANY properties out there, I find that the difference in monthly expenses for a typical 350k 2/2 and a 250k 1/1.5 really isn’t that much (about 600-800/month – not that much in the grand scheme of things). This got me realizing that I would pay a much higher initial sales price if I could just buy something with low maint./assm and low taxes. Obviously I must still be sleeping, because I realize that this is not going to happen!!
As an example to my statement above, take this short sale which is already under contract at 10e ontario – 300k for a 2/2 – I bet the buyer thought he was getting a great deal (after all the unit sold for 600k in 2006). However, the monthly expenses are EXACTLY THE SAME as the subject unit. In addition this guy’s expenses (at 10e ontario) are going to increase at a greater rate than the potential buyer of the subject property (b/c while mortgage payments stay the same, taxes and assm increase). It really is all about psychology
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/10-E-Ontario-St-60611/unit-4806/home/12597974
Clio’s 10 E Ontario example is at least $83k cheaper than this, includes parking, and outdoor pool, etc. I’d take 10 E Ontario as an in-town any day.
This would be a generic 2/2 without parking if not for the view of the lake.
I wouldn’t touch this above $265k. Someone with lower standards will buy this around $300k
Chicago’s first condominium was the Fountain View, a 30-unit building built in 1961 by Dunbar Builders, a client of my old law firm. It was built as a common law condo and the Illinois statute governing condos was adopted in 1963.
The link in the article touts this as Chicago’s first condo tower and is clear that this was not the first condo building.
Cleo – just make sure you are comparing apples to apples in terms of assessments. Some buyers are initally scared off by assessments in my building (I pay 1110 per month for 3000+ square foot 3 bed + den/famiy room, plus large terrace). But the assessment includes everything – full cable (HBO..every channel), internet, all utilities, doorman, health club, insurance, common party room and reserves). We are still putting a significant chunk of assessments into reserves. Many of our competitor buildings have artificially cut assessments by cutting out cable and internet (then tenants have to contract on their own at higher rates with less service..think one week before the cable guy comes to fix your problem) and by not putting away money in the reserves. Make sure you are comparing services and reserves…if your building isnt putting at least 30% of the assessment into reserves then you will eventally pay for it some day.
Clio,
If you do in fact live in the Palmolive and purchased from the developer, you have at least 8-9 more years of virtually NO property taxes.
anonny: “Wouldn’t take this unit unless the building would permit installation of wood flooring in the living room (I imagine they permit certain kinds). ”
This kind of statement makes me question whether I could ever live in a large building. Dictating the type of flooring material you use in your unit? Please.
Highrise living is probably not for me. Or large, annoying associations in general, I suppose.
“Or large, annoying associations in general, I suppose.”
I can’t stand meetings. For me, the only appeal of owning property is the ability to be an absolute tyrant.
Good location, and I like the floor-to-ceiling windows and lake views.
Some drawbacks include price (too high), other buildings right outside the windows in most rooms, lack of wood floors, and lack of guaranteed parking. Still, a nice 2/2 in most respects. For $300K, it might be a good buy.
And by “tyrant”, I mean the ability to rip out sod and select the plants and trees of my choice.
“Clio’s 10 E Ontario example is at least $83k cheaper than this, includes parking, and outdoor pool, etc. I’d take 10 E Ontario as an in-town any day.”
That was my point – even at 83k cheaper, the monthly costs (PITI – yes including the mortgage) are cheaper for the subject unit. You, like 99% of people out there only seem to concentrate on the asking price instead of looking at the monthly cost. Ridiculous, but very very common
“If you do in fact live in the Palmolive and purchased from the developer, you have at least 8-9 more years of virtually NO property taxes.”
The tax freeze only lasts 8 years. If Clio closed in 2006 then there soon will only be 2 more years left on the freeze.
And those are going to be some HEFTY taxes in that building.
Time flies!
“Clio,
If you do in fact live in the Palmolive and purchased from the developer, you have at least 8-9 more years of virtually NO property taxes.”
WAIT – UR a realtor and know people that live here and still manage to say something as stupid as this?!!! Look at the average tax bills of units at the palmolive – they are all between 10 and 30k (sure there is a tax freeze – but this doesn’t seem to “frozen” to me). Is this your idea of “virtually NO property taxes” – you need to be fired.
I just realized- no W/D in unit, no amenities. Assessments are too high. For comparison, when I lived in this neighborhood (albeit 10 years ago), I paid similar assessment, but that included pool, exercise room, party facilities, garage attendants, etc.
I think the things that set this building apart from, say, 2626 and 2650 N. Lakeview, are (i) it’s a smaller, more intimate building and (ii) the units have private outdoor space. Personally, I’d take a similarly priced 2/2 in either of those Lakeview buildings over this place (better location), but some folks really like to be able to step outside for a moment.
That must have been one trendy bachelor pad back in the mid-80’s…
Joe Z: “Chicago’s first condominium was the Fountain View, a 30-unit building built in 1961 by Dunbar Builders, a client of my old law firm. It was built as a common law condo and the Illinois statute governing condos was adopted in 1963. The link in the article touts this as Chicago’s first condo tower and is clear that this was not the first condo building.”
I’m not sure it is clear necessarily. According to Mr Downtown (IMO a pretty reliable source as these things go) on this skyscraperpage thread: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=501420
“A July 1962 Tribune story says Dunbar Builders plans to “use the condominium form of real estate development in the midwest for the first time” in building “Fountain View,” a triangular plot “bounded by Ridge, Ravenswood, and Rosemont avenues, just south of Devon.. . . The project will consist of 52 four room apartments priced at $15,900 each.””
So assuming that project was in fact completed and within a year of that story, that would have it completed in July of 1963 or so. You might be right, but it is hard to say given the dearth of info on the interwebz on the subject. From the map of the site, I’m not sure the building even exists today:
http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=qzzj9z7pt96j&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=11370536&encType=1
You may be right, but from all available information, it is far from clear.
2650 Lakeview doesn’t allow cats, so I’ll never live there. Same with 2800 LSD.
Oh Clio, you are a funny woman.
Sabrina,
The freeze is for 12 years, 8 yr freeze then 4 yrs of adjustments to bring it up to market value.
Dan #2, there’s a 3/2 down at 2500 (#2205) that recently relisted. I think it’s currently at $410k. We looked at it last summer before they delisted (we ended up trying to buy another unit in the building, but that didn’t work out). It needs work (need to update the baths, kitchen, put in wood flooring, and paint). Plus, the building still needs to do its now long overdue window (and HVAC unit) replacement, which is going to result in a big special (but after that’s done, the place will be in solid shape). My sense is that one could close the unit in the very low $300’s; get the unit looking very nice for around $60k; then deal with a special of between $20-40k. Basically, pay not much more than $400k for a 1,600 sq ft 3/2, with lake views and a balcony overlooking the pond/park/lake, with a doorman/garage/pool/fitness room ($1,200 fee with parking). Not bad.
Thanks for the update, anonny. I’ve always liked 2500, though I’ve never been inside a unit there. I’ll bet the special could keep prices down for people who want to get in there now. I’m nowhere near looking, but 10 years down the road, maybe this will be a building we consider.
“The freeze is for 12 years, 8 yr freeze then 4 yrs of adjustments to bring it up to market value.”
It’s not a “freeze” if they are adjusting it for 4 years. The Palmolive residents have either 1 to 2 years (the original buyers) before it starts adjusting. The freeze is only 8 years- as is true in every single other historical building that gets the freeze. And anyone who buys after the original owner doesn’t have the freeze.
Personally- I can’t wait until all of those owners in that building start paying their fair share of this city’s property taxes. It has cost the city’s taxpayers something like $10 million.
“Personally- I can’t wait until all of those owners in that building start paying their fair share of this city’s property taxes.”
Are u fucking kidding me?!!!! You are so biased it is unbelievable. I feel people with more kids should pay more taxes – THEY are the ones who don’t pay their fair share!!! I think people who utilize public services should pay more taxes – THEY are the ones who don’t pay their fair share. Why should someone pay more just because they have money? That is the exact same thing as saying that a beautiful woman should put out more because she should start “paying her fair share”. You are probably the biggest moron out there, sabrina!!!
TftInChi
Fountain View still exists, at 6355 – 6359 N Ridge – and there’s still a fountain fronting Ridge between the two buildings. You can see it in the photo with this listing:
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/6359-N-Ridge-Ave-60660/unit-301/home/13407339
To be a little more precise on the timing, the marketing for Fountain View began in 1961 and the condo dec was filed in January of 1963. There were and are 30 units in the complex, the Trib notwithstanding.
My old law firm (Jenner & Block) drafted the original Illinois Condominium Property Act, helped lobby it through the legislature, worked with Chicago Title to issue individual fee simple title policies and with the Assessor’s office to issue individual PIN numbers for the units. None of that was a trivial accomplishment. I knew well and worked closely with the partners – Dick Helms and Gil Hennessy – who had accomplished all that before I arrived at the firm in 1974. Dick confirmed all that when consulting on the history chapter of a Coops & Condos desk reference book for Realtors that I wrote in 1992.
I also consulted with Herb Rosenthal, the principal of Dunbar, when confirming the facts for the book. Herb had been banned from being a client of the firm after he tried to get a Jenner partner to take the fall for his having bribed Tom Keane, Chairman of the City Council’s Finance Committee, in connection with variances for the Malibu condo.
“Are u fucking kidding me?!!!! You are so biased it is unbelievable. I feel people with more kids should pay more taxes – THEY are the ones who don’t pay their fair share!!! I think people who utilize public services should pay more taxes – THEY are the ones who don’t pay their fair share.”
If you are older, you can get the senior exemption for your taxes Clio.
Otherwise- someone living in the Palmolive in a $6 million property should be paying property taxes to support the library, the pot hole services, all the cops that have to direct traffic near their lovely home all along Michigan Avenue. Instead, they are paying about what a person living in a $300,000 2-bedroom in Lakeview is paying.
I completely understand that the building, under the law, qualified for the tax break. It is meant as an incentive to get developers to put their money into renovating historic structures. But with our budget deficit- everyone needs to pay their fair share and it cost Chicago tax payers $10 million.
6 North Michigan across from Millennium Park is another building that also has the tax freeze.
Here’s an example of how it works:
“The current assessment of the property is frozen for an 8-year period at a level similar to that assessed in 2003. So that could mean that for a one- bedroom residence might be as little as $662 annually, compared to $4,500 assessed on similar units in the area.”
Of course it seems so clear cut to someone who quantifies how involved they are as a parent by the dollar amount they spend on that child, that people using more public services should pay more taxes.
Never would have guessed that the “first condo building” in Chicago would have been built so close to my own residence, in a less-than-prime neighborhood. (I didn’t say “bad,” just that there’s no lake view, easy public trans, etc.) I would have guessed that the honor would have gone to one of the Sheridan Road hirises.
ChiTown Gal–Not sure what you mean by “no lake view or easy public transportation” since the 339 Barry building seems to have both. Are you referring to your current apartment?
Yes, my current home in Ravenswood.
And by “first condo” I meant Fountain View.
I thought the first purpose built condo high rise in Chicago was The Carlyle on LSD..
I hope you guys don’t buy houses in towns with strong landscape ordinances or crazy HOA’s.
Joe Z: Thanks for the info! Interesting history.