2 Years Later and Now Selling for Less than 2007 Price: 646 W. Wellington in East Lakeview
We last chattered about this 3-bedroom 2007 vintage rehab at 646 W. Wellington in East Lakeview in February.
See our prior interesting chatter here (no pictures) about the future of the $500,000 condo in Lakeview.
It is still on the market and has now been reduced $24,100.
It’s also now listed for $5,100 under the 2007 purchase price.
Stuart Schwartz of @Properties has the listing. See the pictures and listing here.
Unit #2: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, no square footage listed
- Sold in January 2007 for $580,000
- Originally listed in January 2008 for $599,000
- Reduced
- Was listed in February 2009 for $589,000
- Reduced
- Currently listed for $574,900
- Assessments are $160 a month
- Taxes are “new”
- Central Air
- W/D
- Parking spot
You know I thought this was priced obscene at 590k but at 575k its a bargain I’m sure it will get picked up quickly by a shrewd first class investor.
(1) Great location, (2) great finishes and (3) it has the all too rare central air, w/d and parking spot must-haves.
But, despite the (negligible) price reduction, these folks are obviously still hoping to close at well in excess of $500k (they’re likely hoping for $550k, fantastically enough).
At this point in time, how many professional couples with one child want to pay over half a million dollars for a walk-up that opens directly into an open (and smallish) living/dining/kitchen room? How many such couples are prepared to put enough down to meet the conforming loan limits and, for that matter, how many still feel secure enough in their jobs to buy now, while they could easily rent a comparable place for less than its carrying costs (or buy a better place a few blocks west)?
(I’m in the above boat, and probably would have purchased this place two years ago. Today, I would possibly, and with no shortage of reluctance, buy this place at the low $400k’s.)
anonny,
Just buy a nice boat instead. Its about as practical as this place is for family living and is a much more funner and recreational way to p*ss your money away.
It’s nice looking, but it appears to be in the neighborhood of 1600 sq ft (max–I’m being generous in the estimate). $350+/ft is too much for this place.
“Taxes are “new””
So what? They are also available. $6,273 per year before exemptions.
Are they insane? Is a third bedroom and partitioned dining room worth over $120,000? The same condo with 2 bedrooms has closed for 450k all over the neighborhood…and that was during the bubble. Recently, a friend of mine who bought 2005 new construction (same finishes @ 465 originally) on the 2nd floor just got re-fi’d and appriased for 400k. So the agent wants to tell us that the crown molding and baseboards really thick? Amazing $3000 upgrade that any starving contractor would do at a discount these days….not $30,000. This isn’t even the top floor so enjoy the footsteps on your head. Lovely views of the neighboring brick wall too. Sorry I am going OFF on this place but the greed and delusions of grandeur make me ill. Those of you who have read my posts know I have sold my lakeview condo at a significant loss…bc I am in tune with reality. So, it irritates me to see people who are this far out of reality. Actually, I have people like this to thank for it because they were clearly not competition at this insane price point. For a vintage rehab, the outside is not even attractive. It’s dull and boring…pollution coated brick. This will never appraise above 500k so good luck getting a loan too… and a jumbo at that!
G, you always seem to have the best data on here so I have a followup question. Why are the taxes only 6273? I have seen many 500k properties in this area usually at $7300 (assuming it was assessed after the sale). Is that based on pre-rehab sales? Once the 2009 re-assessments come in, I think it’ll be over 7k.
And good luck to them keeping ASM at $160 in a gut rehab.
Do people really find Bosch dishwashers more effective than cheaper ones? Honestly? And how many professional chefs are out there these days that a Viking stove is that important?
Talk about tiny bedrooms, who are they trying to kid here with the “no sqft listed” routine that these jokers are always trying to pull?
It appears to be underassessed, which is common.
The assessor has it assessed at 44,169. That is a market value of $441,680 at the ‘real’ assessment rate (10%), and a MV of only $276,056 at the legislated 16%.
Assessment rates are changing across all classes for the Chicago reassessment this year. It should be interesting to see how the tax burden is shifted around. Winners? Losers? We’ll have to wait and see.
The “new” taxes and “no sqft listed” are to try to detract from the redonkulousness of thier ask price. Depending on sqft I am guessing this is just another 420k 2/2.
A question borne out of curiosity:
Do buyers *really* care about a Walk Score?
Its been mentioned and discussed on this site before. Mostly to prove that not all locations are created equal when comparing them.
I grew up in a suburban house with a walk score of 11, now I live in an area near this listing with a walk score of 98 and my lifestyle is commensurably better. I think I could stand to downgrade some but I could never go back to 11 (drive more than 2 miles everywhere).
I’m sure the majority of perusers of the MLS probably have no idea what it means though. When I told my baby boomer parents about the walkscore of their house it was a shrug, who cares what an internet site says according to them.
Hmm. Interesting. I shudder to think what my husband’s childhood home’s walk score would be. Is a “negative” score possible?
Apparently, a “negative” isn’t possible, but a big fat ZERO sure as heck is:
“Walk Score: 0 out of 100 — Car-Dependent”
Bosch DW are worth it – quiet and sleek. Just junked the builder installed Whirlpool DW which leaked at 1.5 years new.
If u have an open kitchen, I agree to upgrade the DW for noise purposes. I just think it’s a funny advertising point that comes up in these MLS listings bc a DW can be replaced or upgraded in new construction (relatively) easily. Other things like crappy Goodman HVAC cost $5000-$10,000 to replace after they break 3-10 years into your home ownership. Nobody ever seems to want to mention the HVAC in a MLS listing though this will affect your life far more than your dish washer’s brand name. I guess I never had a bad DW to compare it to.
“Talk about tiny bedrooms, who are they trying to kid here with the “no sqft listed” routine that these jokers are always trying to pull?”
Not listing the square footage is fairly common among new construction units that did not have it listed originally from the developer- when they go to do the resale. Square footage is a very sensitive thing (as many lawyers can attest, I’m sure.) If you don’t know it exactly- it’s safer to just not list it.
Can’t they just use BOMA to calculate sf?
“If you don’t know it exactly- it’s safer to just not list it.”
Then explain all the listings that include absolute fantastical square footage? We regularly point out places that overstate the square footage by 20%+.
“Can’t they just use BOMA to calculate sf?”
Why would BOMA get involved in small residential projects? If it’s a hi-rise apt conversion, sure, but this one? The closest BOMA might have ever gotten to this is an employee renting there.
You’re not in those units. You don’t know what the closets, bathrooms, hallways etc are like. Square footage in those spaces adds up.
Additionally, some square footage totals include the balcony or outdoor space.
So your “estimate” that the square footage is overstated by 20%+ is likely not correct.
Many developers don’t put down square footage on new construction units because it can be used by lawyers to get out of the contract (if it’s not 100% correct.) Or- at least- that’s what I’ve heard from my lawyer friends.
Walkscores of 90+ are typically “higher value” neighborhoods in the city… so there is some corrilation of being conveinent to everything and $/sqft.
“So your “estimate” that the square footage is overstated by 20%+ is likely not correct.”
Sabrina:
There have been a number of units on the CC that would have to be larger than the outer walls of the building if they were the stated square footage. Unless some of the closets cross into an alternate universe, there is no way that the square footage of *some* places is correct–and it is often 20%+.
“some square footage totals include the balcony or outdoor space”
So, in your mind, it would be legitimate for me to say the square footage of my house includes the garage square footage, the front porch, the deck in the back, and–what the hell–my yard? Hey guys, I have a 7500 sq ft house! I’ll sell it for $200/ft.
That’s crap Sabrina. I can’t believe you’re condoning the practice.
“Additionally, some square footage totals include the balcony or outdoor space.”
Heh. While I do place a premium on outdoor space, no way in heck would it ever command the same $/sf from my dollar as indoor space. What about roofs over garages? Some of them are flat these days to accommodate space. Should that be included in the square footage as well? Its a fradulent practice to include outside square footage in my opinion and a frequent listing trick.
“Why would BOMA get involved in small residential projects? If it’s a hi-rise apt conversion, sure, but this one? The closest BOMA might have ever gotten to this is an employee renting there.”
BOMA doesn’t have to get involved.
They have a methodology for determining RSF. Standardizing the measures would go along way in eliminating the BS games of overstating SF
“Its a fradulent practice to include outside square footage in my opinion”
No “opinion” necessary. It’s done with an intent to deceive, it’s fraud.
Is a 2000 sq ft house on a full acre lot a “42,560 sq ft house”? No. Similarly a 1000 sq ft condo with a 500 sq ft terrace ain’t a 1500 sq ft condo.
“BOMA doesn’t have to get involved.
They have a methodology for determining RSF. Standardizing the measures would go along way in eliminating the BS games of overstating SF”
Yes, but isn’t that just a calculation method for converting measurements of usable area & common area to “rentable” area? Does it actually include a regimin for pulling the tape?
I bet if you ask three architects to determine the SF of this unit, they would come up with three different answers.
Asking agents to state an “accurate” square footage isn’t realistic – they simply aren’t qualified, any more than they are to do a plat of survey.
“Yes, but isn’t that just a calculation method for converting measurements of usable area & common area to “rentable” area? Does it actually include a regimin for pulling the tape?”
It also defines the areas for classification. The R/U factor is a means to give renters/buyers an idea on the efficiency of the building layout
BOMA dictates where the measurements are to be taken from to provide some consistency so in that regard, yes they provide a regimen whether it be CAD or tape.
“yes they provide a regimen [for] tape”
Can you point me to it? I’ve looked for it before, but never found it.
“I bet if you ask three architects to determine the SF of this unit, they would come up with three different answers. ”
And if you asked 3 BOMA members, you’d get 6 different answers.
“I bet if you ask three architects to determine the SF of this unit, they would come up with three different answers.
Asking agents to state an “accurate” square footage isn’t realistic – they simply aren’t qualified, any more than they are to do a plat of survey.”
Heaven forebid they actually do something for their 6%
They aren’t qualified to do any number of things, yet it doesn’t stop them from either doing it themselves or hiring someone to do it for them.
“Can you point me to it? I’ve looked for it before, but never found it”
You’d probably need to buy the software or look up the ANSI standard.
“You’d probably need to buy the software or look up the ANSI standard.”
Software? For the standards for pulling tape? So there isn’t a standard, is there?
Is reading comprehension not your strong suit? The standard notes where you start your measurements from. While you may not like it, it is a procedure.
If you’re that much of an anal retentive d-bag, talk to a LS about pulling a tape. They can fill you in on all of the procedures. Get ready for an exciting conversation revolving around coefficients of thermal expansion, tension and sag.
“The standard notes where you start your measurements from.”
If it is that easy, then why would I need the software?
And I understand the tape pulling on land surveying; I just haven’t been able to find any useful “standard” for interiotr measurement and, notwithstanding your assertions, still have *nothing* helpful. Thanks, Johnny Utah!
“If it is that easy, then why would I need the software?”
Because its not that easy? Its simple addition, but there are often jogs that need to be accounted for. Also some people use a computerized drafting program often times referred to as CAD. With certain BOMA calculation software packages it pretty easy to determine the RSF.
“And I understand the tape pulling on land surveying; I just haven’t been able to find any useful “standard” for interiotr measurement and, notwithstanding your assertions, still have *nothing* helpful. Thanks, Johnny Utah!”
Maybe because it takes more than a 3 sentence response? Take exterior windows for example, (This is going off memory so take it for what its worth) – If the window is 50% of the wall, you take the footage to the I/S of the glass pane as is considered rentable space.
There are other specific issues related to shafts, bump outs, Structural systems, etc. I’m sure I have guidelines somewhere and if you have a specific questions Vs just crying about there’s no standard on how one takes measurements, ask it and I’ll try and answer.
Or you can talk to an Architect or get a copy of the BOMA/ANSI code.
You are welcome
Thanks, Johnny. Seriously.
And now, I have a real answer to your initial question of “Can’t they just use BOMA to calculate sf?”:
No, because:
(a) it’s too hard (remember–realtors), and
(b) there isn’t any meaningful difference in residential real estate b/t 1168 sqft and 1178 sq ft, and
(c) the cost/benefit ratio is too high in light of (b).
A – True, but in the current marketplace some enterprising agent could use this a differentiating method to drive some actual value for their clients (I know, I know)
B – There may not be that much of an issue, but based on what I’ve seen realtors do play games with the SF. Personally, if I was in the market I’d be pissed if realtors were consistently high by a couple of hundred sf. Also on this site there’s a wide swing both ways in determining actual SF, things like walls, stairs, etc aren’t included in some posters calculations
C – Depends on the person. It might be of value for the Condo buyer to get their assessments dropped. Also adding some consistency to the way things are communicated would help the buyer.
Finally BOMA might not be the right tool, but there should be some sort of standard to determine a consistent SF basis for residential property.
“there should be some sort of standard to determine a consistent SF basis for residential property”
I think we **all** can agree on that.
“Also on this site there’s a wide swing both ways in determining actual SF, things like walls, stairs, etc aren’t included in some posters calculations”
Yep, but a unit/house can’t be *larger* than the dripline times the number of floors (unless you count garage, outdoor space, etc). And we’ve seen properties that claim sqft beyond the dripline.