Connoisseurs of Design Needed for Gold Coast Vintage 2/2 Listed at $800,000: 73 E. Elm
This 2-bedroom in 73 E. Elm in the Gold Coast came on the market in September 2024.
73 E. Elm is a favorite of vintage lovers. It was designed by famed Chicago architects McNally & Quinn in 1928.
It’s a boutique elevator building with just 48 units. There is 24-hour door staff and a roof deck.
There’s no parking but it’s available at 30 E Elm or 1150 N. Lake Shore Drive for rent.
This listing says the seller’s spared no expense on this unit but it appears, from the pictures, that the renovations might have been done as far back as 2015 (see the listing summary and pictures for the 2015 and 2019 sales).
It has dark hardwood floors in the main living spaces and a formal entry foyer with arched doorways.
There is a decorative fireplace in the living room.
The kitchen is open to a family room and has custom white cabinets, Subzero and Wolf appliances and an island with seating for 3.
There are built-ins in the family room which includes a wine refrigerator and a desk with cabinets.
There are French doors to the primary suite which has a walk-in-closet and a Carrara marble bath with a walk-in-shower and double vanity.
There is a second full bath in the hallway.
The listing says the unit has new windows.
It has space pac air conditioning but there is no washer/dryer in the unit, nor does the building allow them. There is a “full service” laundry room in the building.
This building is near the shops and restaurants of the Gold Coast plus Oak Street Beach and Michigan Avenue. There are several bus lines nearby.
Listed at $800,000, that is $107,500 above the 2019 purchase price of $692,500.
Will this seller get the premium in this hot market?
Ryan Gossett and Omar Gonzalez at Compass have the listing. See the pictures and floor plan here.
Unit #4A: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1600 square feet
- Sold in June 2007 for $440,000
- Sold in December 2009 for $660,000
- Sold in July 2012 for $642,500
- Sold in August 2015 for $685,000
- Sold in July 2019 for $692,500
- Originally listed in September 2024 for $800,000
- Currently still listed at $800,000
- Assessments of $2186 a month (includes doorman, cable, exterior maintenance, scavenger, snow removal)
- Taxes of $8787
- Space pac cooling
- No washer/dryer in the unit. Laundry room in the building
- No parking but available in the neighborhood
- Decorative fireplace
- Bedroom #1: 12×15
- Bedroom #2: 12×15
- Living room: 12×14
- Dining room: 10×14
- Foyer: 16×6
- Family room: 18×12
- Kitchen: 13×18
- Walk-in-closet: 6×7
This is set up really nice as a PAT or empty nesters as a 1Br. Turn the Mbr into an entertainment room/guest Br. Kitchen is well laid out and the sitting area off the kitchen is an added bonus
The assessments are killer
“ The assessments are killer”
True, but vintage lovers will pay for it.
When are developers going to learn that people are willing to pay top dollars for minor upgrades — solid core doors, built-in shelves, and crown molding? There’s evidence of it all over the place in these no amenity vintage buildings where people justify the 4 digit assessments.
“When are developers going to learn that people are willing to pay top dollars for minor upgrades — solid core doors, built-in shelves, and crown molding? There’s evidence of it all over the place in these no amenity vintage buildings where people justify the 4 digit assessments.”
why does the upgraded interior correlate to a higher assessment?
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/175-E-Delaware-Pl-60611/unit-4503/home/14120087
It’s why I and this is a personal preference like larger buildings to spread across assessments
so in the unit above a 2 bedroom 2 bath approximately the same size has an assessment under $1 / ft.
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/175-E-Delaware-Pl-60611/unit-8509/home/14119011
a larger more expensive unit but again the assessment is under $1 / sq ft
I think the Elm unit is over $1.3 / sq ft
you are spreading the cost of that 24 hr staff over 48 units vs. 700 plus units in the Hancock
“ why does the upgraded interior correlate to a higher assessment?”
I was emphasizing that many people are willing to pay high assessments just to live in a vintage building. This suggests there’s likely a significant segment of buyers who would pay a premium for classic upgrades in a new build, especially since few modern buildings are constructed with that level of attention to detail.
“you are spreading the cost of that 24 hr staff over 48 units vs. 700 plus units in the Hancock”
Yep. As I have said over and over again on this blog, if you have 24/7 door staff, you better have the units to pay for it. It’s just 48 units. 48 units are paying for a staff of, what, 8 to 10 people? This is their salaries, health insurance and other benefits (pension?).
And THEN you have a vintage building with all the upkeep with that.
This is the most costly type of building to live in, frankly.
I have some new posts teed up for tomorrow and next week. But I’ve been busy with Hurricane Milton (lots of friends and family in the Tampa area.)
Thank goodness it wasn’t as bad as they expected. Still damage, but not catastrophic.
“Listed at $800,000, that is $107,500 above the 2019 purchase price of $692,500.”
Or, in real dollars, $50,000 less:
July 2019 for $692,500 + CPI = $851k
also:
June 2007 for $440,000 + CPI = $665k (pre-reno)
December 2009 for $660,000 + CPI = $963k (I’d guess the reno was done for this sale)
July 2012 for $642,500 + CPI = $884k
August 2015 for $685,000 + CPI = $906k
Also-also: while i definitely prefer the layout and (most of) the finishes in the featured 4A, I don’t really think I like then $265k more than 10B:
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/73-E-Elm-St-60611/unit-10B/home/14123311
The difference pays for almost a decade(!!) of the HOA!!
Total no-brainer.
“Or, in real dollars, $50,000 less:”
Seller cares if they can pay the agent, the transfer costs and still get out of it with something.
We all know that Chicago real estate has under performed for about 20 years. It’s been brutal for those who actually bought during the housing bubble. Similar to if you bought some of the hottest dot-com stocks at those highs. Had to wait a decade, or even more, just to get back to breakeven.
Lesson: try not to buy in a bubble. Thank goodness we aren’t in one now. New generations of buyers also have no memory of it though, so that’s helpful.
Interestingly, some of my kids friends, in their mid-20s, are already talking about buying condos because of how much cheaper it is than renting. I tell them to wait a few more years. But I feel like we’re about to see real demand for condos again. And they aren’t really building many of them.
“Seller cares if they can pay the agent, the transfer costs and still get out of it with something.”
I’ve never met a seller that didnt care that the sale of their house wouldnt help fund a bigger/better one. Losing purchasing power is real