We Love Authentic Lofts: Brick, Timber and a Roofdeck at 1001 W. Altgeld in Lincoln Park
This multi-level 3-bedroom unit at the Soda Pop Factory Lofts, at 1001 W. Altgeld in Lincoln Park, has the features of a wide open loft but the bedrooms appear to have some privacy.
The ceilings are timber and the living room area is nearly all brick. This unit also has a roof-top deck that the listing says you access through an interior staircase.
It’s also selling for less than the 2006 price.
Joseph Siciliano at @Properties has the listing. See more pictures here.
Unit #1: 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, 1800 square feet, 1 car parking
- Sold in June 2005 for $500,000
- Sold in June 2006 for $535,000
- Currently listed for $525,000 (parking included)
- Assessments of $359 a month
- Taxes of $6518
- Central Air
- Two decks
- Woodburning fireplace
Hmmm, 3 bedrooms, nice roofdeck, decent locale and cheap assessments but still way overpriced.
This place actually has a lot going for it. I don’t think it’s THAT overpriced.
Next to the red line, hmmmm
“Next to the red line, hmmmm”
Across Sheffield from the red line. Not silent, but reasonably well sheltered by the buildings east of Sheffield. It does depend on whether this unit is on the east or west side of the building–I can’t tell from the deck pic + aerials.
“I don’t think it’s THAT overpriced”
It’s not *that* overpriced, but they are trying to hang on to peak pricing, when teh market is off 10+%. $475k would sound a lot better, imo.
For the people who think everything is overpriced… why not tell us what things should be priced at, and why? Just saying its “overpriced” is not productive and does nothing for what is supposed to be a discussion.
This seems about right at $500K. Good sized, unique space, parking and private rooftop deck.
Given the market, location of this place, and the finishes I actually think this place is worth the money.
“why not tell us what things should be priced at, and why? ”
People here often provide the “what”, and you’ll get a chorus on the “why” of variations on (a) economy sux, (b) bubble is over, (c) comps are lower, (d) will be worth less tomorrow, (e) 100% financing is dead, (f) you’re dumb (I don’t like f, but there are a few here who do roll it out).
This one I think is b and e. The target buyer isn’t likely to have $100k+ to use as a DP to get a conforming loan and isn’t likely to want to afford the jumbo premium. And, the ask is really the peak price still. Now, if they are open to negotiationg ~105 off, then you’re talking. I just think that ~$500k is a bad spot to be right now with the conforming limit at $417. Folks want to use 10% down and want cheap financing unless it’s just not possible (i.e., if they are in market for a $800k+ SFH). And I already suggested $475k.
Well with 20% down they could get a conforming loan at the ask on this place. anon(tfo) are you saying that our hypothetical dual income power-couple target market is income rich but asset poor and can’t come up with the 100k downpayment?
Yeah thats precisely why I don’t like these people. I am glad they can’t get conventional financing without 20% down on this place. They should look at their finances holistically, not just their gross income, and examine WHY they don’t have 20% to put down. Maybe they need to learn to be better savers or maybe they aren’t ready for a 525k place just yet.
“saying that our hypothetical dual income power-couple target market is income rich but asset poor and can’t come up with the 100k downpayment?”
No, I’m saying that that hypothetical couple would want to live here for ~1 to 3 years (like to two prior owners) and with the developing shift in market attitude, if they have $100k plus for a DP, they’re looking for a longer term solution *or* something cheaper. This (and up to about $650k) is a tweener price point now, imo.
an automatic discount to a 2006 price makes no sense. We have no information as to what caused the 2006 price to be what it was.
An asset is only worth what someone will pay for it at one point in time, what someone else paid for it at other points in time makes no difference.
If I purchased a house in 2006 for $1, is it automatically worth $0.50 today? Even if it is a penthouse in Lincoln Park with 43 bedrooms? The answer is no.
“an automatic discount to a 2006 price makes no sense. ”
Who said anything about an “automatic discount”, in those or other words? Nobody, because you’re right, it doesn’t make sense.
But neither do all of the places (yes, yes, not this one) priced at 10% over 2006 pricing.
Let me ask you folks who think it’s right-priced–what would this rent for?
I think the ask is within striking distance of what I think it is “worth” in this market: about $500K. Why? Well, for one thing, the place is *not* 1800 sq. ft. It’s closer to 1400 (very generously, given that you must lose a lot to stairwells)–they are calling the roofdeck an additional “room” (on the “4th level”). So call it 1400–at 500,000 that puts it at about $350 sq. ft. Given that it has parking and a private roof deck, that seems all right to me. Not a steal by any means (it is still a loft, and an older one at that), but the location is very good.
Anon (tfo), I say it would rent for $3000 to $3500… but I’m not very good at estimating rents.
anon (tfo) pegged it. I think it’s fair at 450. But a year from now you could probably get something like this cheaper.
Brad — you’re right, but one of the best comps you can get on a property is the property itself (especially if it’s from a recent transaction like 2 years).
And the hypothetical situation you described is basically the opposite of the mortgage fraud we see around here some times (probably tax fraud instead 😉
I really like the look of this place. One of the bathrooms is kind of dated, but other than that its pretty nice. I dont know why everyone assumes it sooo overpriced. Theres only 23 other places on the market right now that are under 525K in LP. The ones priced under this are not that great. Maybe a 499K would be ideal, but 525K is not terrible. Also there has been 8 closed condos in LP that are 3beds/2.1 bths under 525K in the last 6 months. I would say only one of these is as nice as this one on the inside, but it didnt have parking or a rooftop deck. (that one closed at 515K)
“I dont know why everyone assumes it sooo overpriced.”
Who said it was “sooo overpriced”?
There have been a couple of 5% less and a couple of 10% less. No one has yet said it’s only worth $250k (altho one of the johns might come along and do so). ~10% of original ask is pretty fair in the current environment.
“Also there has been 8 closed [3/2.1] condos in LP … in the last 6 months.”
Out of how many total 3/2.1 LP condos closed in the last 6 months? It’s a pretty small number, isn’t it?
If it’s 1800 sqft plus the deck, I think there’s a chance this goes for above $500k. If not, well, not so much.
This will sell in the 400’s.
I wonder, do people move more often in a city vs. elsewhere? It seems to me, and this is just anecdotal, that people tend to buy and sell (or rent and re-rent) more often in a city then compared to people that live in the suburbs or smaller cities and towns.
If this is the case, how does this effect the market here?
People generally will buy a condo and live in it a couple of years until a baby comes along and then they run out to the suburbs. People usually move right before the kid heads off to pre-school – which is why 90% of the places on this site always have a young kids room.
If you ever want to know if a place will come on the market soon, just look for the SUV stroller on the decks and balconies of condo units. I guarantee it will be on the market within 1 year.
It seems people who live in the burbs usually aren’t under as much pressure to move sense the schools are fine and they will already have more space.
People are trying to sell at unrealistic wishing prices but few are buying. Most underwater FB’s cannot sell unless they bring money to the closing table, which they will not do. So, to answer your question, properties are going to sit and the market will be at a virtual standstill like it is now.
I and most other prospective buyers refuse to pay over 2004 prices and I’ll buy when we’re at 1999 prices across the board. Of course, between now and then, there will be a handful of FBs who will buy thinking that they’re getting a ‘deal’. They’ll be setting the comps for everybody else on the way down to 1999.
OIP is looking at 2004/2003/2002 pricing (depending on the property) at the moment and it’s trending downward. It amazes me that people who bought 2003+ now selling are hoping for unrealistic appreciation when they should be happy to walk away without bringing any money to the table.
Last 6 months
4063 n koster
Dec 05, 2008 Sold $545,000 -1.1%/yr
Aug 30, 2002 Sold $584,000
4232 n tripp
Oct 23, 2008 Sold $660,000 0.8%/yr
Jul 07, 2004 Sold $637,500
3732 n springfield
Jan 06, 2009 Sold $472,500 0.0%/yr
Aug 31, 2004 Sold $471,500
4533 w hutchinson
Oct 08, 2008 Sold $500,000 -4.8%/yr
Jan 19, 2005 Sold $600,000
3854 n milwaukee
Sep 29, 2008 Sold $322,000 -5.4%/yr
Apr 15, 2005 Sold $390,000
“If you ever want to know if a place will come on the market soon, just look for the SUV stroller on the decks and balconies of condo units. I guarantee it will be on the market within 1 year.”
I consider these sheeple little more than automatons. Almost like a predictable computer program following its instructions. Their complete predictability, almost down to a tee, is indicative that they are susceptible to groupthink and lemming like.
I’m not surprised people like this got us into this mess in any case as their strict adherence to groupthink led them to drive up housing pricing to get terribly out of wack with rental yields.
Is it mean spirited to be gleeful at the fact that many of these persons are facing financial difficulties due to their poor decision making? Perhaps. But given the big sh_t sandwich they got our economy into, I don’t care. Not being a humanist, I have the popcorn ready and will enjoy the show.
Bob:
I am not as cynical as you and I also don’t believe these people ruined our economy. Given the history of your posts, I think you need a vacation. You have a little too much pent up anger. I really hope you don’t work for the postal service.
It is easy to play arm chair quarter back and talk about shoulda, coulda, woulda.
I think the lesson is that buying a home is not a short term investment and you better be prepared to take your lumps if you have to get out of your property within two or three years. While rental rates are good indicator, I do not think people buy homes based on what it could rent for. I could careless what my house rents for. Cap rates and the like are irrelevant to a homeowner looking to settle down and have their own plot of land. I can easily afford the payment and that is all that matters.
With the popularization of city living over the past 15 years, many people bought condos as starter homes and almost always were able to sell them and move up to the bigger house in the suburbs when junior comes along. That isn’t the case now. Several things are going to happen. One, young couples are likely to give more thought before buying as they are realizing they may need to hold it much longer than 2 years. However, I can also see this helping improve schools in teh city since homeowners will no longer be able to just flee to the burbs on a whim and they are going to need somewhere to send their kids to school.
Just some random thoughts on a Saturday afternoon…
Edu,
This whole phenomenon that you are talking about is indeed a product of popularization of city living, which became much more prevalent due to cheap cheap money and lax lending standards over the past dozen years, leading to the resultant condo BOOM. My wife and I lived in Lincoln Park for three years after we got married. We rented, as there was no such thing as affordable condos for young people, even those with two good incomes (I’m talking 1970’s, kids). City living was much different back then, and only the very few committed to city life, who could afford Latin School or Francis Park, stuck around. Now we’re ready to return from the burbs. With dozens of condo buildings offering an array of options it seems doable, but the prices all seem way out of whack when you compare what is available in the suburbs. My advice to those who are looking to buy, or leave the city, is to check out the burbs and you will get value. When those who bought condos in the city with a short term plan throw in the towel and accept the inevitable losses that come with the current circumstances that Edu describes, there are those of us out here who will buy from you, when the price is right.
Brad,
I moved 5 times in 7 years while renting in the city, and lived in 4 different neighborhoods. I liked trying and learning about a new spot of the city. I haven’t moved after purchasing, mainly because I’m quite happy with the place I have.
To others:
I too hope that the schools will improve in the city, but I will be the first to admit that I don’t have a grasp on the nature of the problem. Is it more perception vs. reality? It seems tough to understand what is fundamentally different between Lakeview / Lincoln Park vs. say Elmhurst from an economic, race, age, education composition that makes grade & high schools so much behind in the city.
I say behind by looking at the ratings link for schools that was provided in a prior Crib Chatter.
Yes, it’s 10 on a saturday and I’m posting. Even Sabrina’s out for the evening.
Bob,
How did people who buy a condo in the city, have kids, then move to the suburbs cause this problem? Seems like they aren’t under water or are willing to come to the closing table with money…
“I wonder, do people move more often in a city vs. elsewhere? It seems to me, and this is just anecdotal, that people tend to buy and sell (or rent and re-rent) more often in a city then compared to people that live in the suburbs or smaller cities and towns.
If this is the case, how does this effect the market here?”
I don’t remember the last time I saw a condo that last sold before 2002 (meaning the owner has lived in it 7 years.)
You’d think you’d see more long-term owners in single family homes but that hasn’t been the case either. It’s pretty rare for me to find a property that last sold 10 years ago.
Nationwide- people move every 7 years on average. In Chicago, people tend to live in loft condos only 2 years. For other condos- I haven’t seen the stats- but it can’t be much longer than 3 years.
This has HUGE ramifications on the market because, essentially, a large group of people are going to be “stuck” in their properties.
Could it be that they’ll have to enroll their kids in the Chicago public schools instead of moving to the suburbs for kindergarten? I think we’ll see much more of that.
Whether or not it’s a huge influx, remains to be seen. It’ll be interesting to watch.
Sabrina, there is no way the average owner stays in his loft condo for only 2 years. That would mean that half the units in every loft building would turn over every calendar year. If you look at just one West Loop loft condo building as a random example, 1000 W Adams, just 15 out of 150 units sold throughout 2007. That’s only 10%, or a move every ten years. I’m sure there are busier buildings out there, but I doubt anywhere sells 50% of the units every year.
To understand suburban mentality, is to understand nomadic condo ownership in Chicago (Lincoln Park in this case).
We bought near Webster & Magnolia in 1981 for $113K at 16%; that was NO small sum of money at the time, and especially for a neighborhood that was dicey at best – you never really feared for your personal safely, but the monthly car break-ins, garage taggings, gun shots, theft (flower boxes, grills, X-mas wreaths, garbage cans), blah blah, certainly put you on edge (we weren’t the only city, my friends in Manhattan had it much worse). We never imagined we would actually make money (what’s that??) on our homes, because our motives for buying weren’t for profit, but rather for love of the neighborhood and all of its neglected Victorian gems. The area was as far away from our mindless suburban upbringings as we could get, and there was no way in hell this band of misfits (by suburban standards) were ever going back, regardless of how uncertain the neighborhood’s future was. Tough love.
So find a place, pay the price, enjoy it and the neighborhood, live in the moment, and just STF up! Real profits are for those who say the course. Ownership in the city has always been, will always be, uncertain and a challenge: ‘long, narrow, and dark’ isn’t something that bothers us, we work with it. What it really declares though, is your love of kitchen/family room/mega deck combos that the suburbs offer… you ain’t going to find that here (may I suggest Lombard), and if you could, it would certainly not sell at $400 per sq ft. regardless of your relentless price whining posts here.
Face the fact that you aren’t cut out for urban living, you never were, it was just a layover for your ultimate destination of Naperville…. where everyone is just-like-you. Your condo purgatory days are over. You lost. Move along.
Jay-
I laughed at your kitchen/family room/mega deck combo statement. Flipping through a few SFH floorplans I’m confused on why people want couches & tv’s in the kitchen with that family room combo. There’s a few on Winchester & Wolcott, mainly due to length of house but think living room in front, flowing into dining room, then kitchen and then ‘family room’, but open to kitchen. Maybe that floorplan helps when you have kids?
Art: The stat is an “average” length of time. So some stay longer and some stay less.
I’m just telling you what I heard. The stat is a few years old now. I’d like to see the overall condo stat for Chicago. I’m betting it is only about 3 years or so.
Also- 1040 W. Adams isn’t that great of an example. There were a lot of flippers in the building who couldn’t flip and rented out the unit instead. It only started closings like 2 years ago and then the bust happened. (There are, by the way, some short sales and foreclosures in that building now.)
I would look at one of the older loft buildings that have been around longer. You’ll find they change hands a lot more often.
Regarding the condo stat for Chicago, it is important to include all of the “owners” who have had to lease out their units because they were not able to sell as Sabrina has mentioned. I am currently renting a condo from a person who had to move to L.A. but was unable to sell their condo for what they purchased it for. On my floor of my highrise there are now 40% tenants vs. buyers because three other owners had to lease instead of sell also. If one were to look at ownership records for my floor, it would look rather stable, but in reality, almost half of the units are now trenants.
“I’m just telling you what I heard. The stat is a few years old now. I’d like to see the overall condo stat for Chicago. I’m betting it is only about 3 years or so.”
Think of the annual sales volume if what you heard was accurate. It’s obviously NOT true. C’mon, Sabrina – think!
Morgan-
Agreed. Same situation. I rent at 640 N Franklin. Condo building, built in 2005, steadily becoming more and more tenant occupied.
Wicker:
“It seems tough to understand what is fundamentally different between Lakeview / Lincoln Park vs. say Elmhurst from an economic, race, age, education composition that makes grade & high schools so much behind in the city.”
Couple thoughts:
(1) looking at all of LP or LV will give a skewed impression, location matters a great deal for school analysis, not sure what way this cuts, but if you look at general population stats for 60614, it will be quite different from households w/ kids in ’14 and also from households in the “better” neighborhood school areas,
(2) there isn’t any meaningful difference b/t the “desirable” LP/LV/couple others elem schools and Elmhurst (or wherever) elem schools–unless that difference favors the CPS schools,
(3) the comparison breaks down at the HS level–for the most part, outside of the (6?) selective enrollment HS and a few other IB and similar programs, LPHS is the only city school “they” would consider sending their kids to (slight exagerration, but only slight),
(4) LV’s neighborhood HS, Lakeview HS, is full of kids who live west of the river, instead of being a real neighborhood school; there just aren’t enough CPS HS students in the area right now,
(5) If the person bloviating on the horrors of CPS doesn’t have kids or never seriously considered sending them to CPS, you can probably ignore most of what they say about CPS,
(6) the SFHs in the preferred school attendance areas are *really* much more expensive than sort of similar suburban homes. There are a lot of people who might stay in the city if they could send their kids to one of the “good” schools and afford a SFH, but when a “nice” city house in the right ‘hood is $1mm+, and a larger, similar-quality house in Elmhurst (or wherever–don’t ask me about non-North Shore, non-Hinsdale ‘burbs–I don’t know where most of them are) is $500k and has a yard big enough for a swingset, most people would choose to bank the $500k for college, and compromise on the commute and local, adult-oriented amenities.
“In Chicago, people tend to live in loft condos only 2 years.”
There is an interpretation of this anecdotal “fact” that fits the “fact” and everyone else’s observation:
It includes renters. And owners turned landlords.
As stated by Sabrina, it is people live in, NOT necessarily own, loft condos, on average, for only 2 years. That includes all of the one-year leasers along with the 20 year owners. And can include those 20 year owners, if they only lived in it for a year then rented it out.
Also, it is undoubtedly an out-dated piece of conventional wisdom from some part of the Chicago RE community that started off based soundly on some hard facts and it got rounded and extrapolated in a fashion that allows it to retain a kernel of truth, but open to many complaints.
Bob,
Can’t say I agree with you about “automatons,” but it is certainly interesting to hear that opinion being voiced.
I somewhat resemble what you’ve described there- My wife and I bought a condo in 2003, had a baby in 2008, and are now feeling uncomfortable with the idea of sending our child to a public school inside the city. I dread the idea of moving to the burbs, but I fear it is inevitable.
However, we bought a condo we could afford with a fixed mortgage, and are prepared to ride out the current storm in housing prices for at least another couple years, possibly until 2013. Not sure how this in any way contributes to “the mess we’re in now” as you put it.
I understand your anger at personal irresponsibility, but it feels misdirected aiming it toward couples with children.
Perhaps you feel anger toward families for a different reason?
“now feeling uncomfortable with the idea of sending our child to a public school inside the city”
Have you done any research on even *one* CPS school? Do you know what school is your ‘hood school (it might not be the closest one to you)? Unless you do that, I have disdain for you–you have an infant and you’d be considering moving based on what you’ve “heard”.
If you’ve done the research, then I have only one thing to add–re-check the research before you actually list your place. Many elementary schools are changing pretty rapidly.