We Love Big Patios: 1616 N. Larrabee in Lincoln Park Reduces $80K

We’ve chattered about this townhouse at 1616 N. Larrabee in Lincoln Park several times since September 2008.

1616-n-larrabee-approved.jpg

See our April 2009 chatter and pictures here.

It has a 900-square foot patio as well as other outdoor space.  It also has its own private garage and no monthly assessments.

It has now been reduced $80,000 since September 2008.

Is this townhouse now priced to sell?

1616-n-larrabee-terrace-aprroved.jpg

1616-n-larrabee-kitchen-approved.jpg

1616-n-larrabee-diningroom-approved.jpg

Eileen Brennan at Prudential Preferred still has the listing. See more pictures here.

1616 N. Larrabee: 2 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, 1500 square feet

  • Sold in June 1992 for $240,000
  • Sold in October 1999 for $378,000
  • Sold in April 2004 for $505,000
  • Originally listed in September 2008 for $649,000
  • Reduced several times
  • Was listed in February 2009 at $609,000
  • Reduced
  • Was listed in April 2009 at $598,000
  • Reduced
  • Currently listed for $569,000 
  • No assessment
  • Taxes of $7,360
  • 900 square foot patio
  • 1 car garage
  • Central Air

91 Responses to “We Love Big Patios: 1616 N. Larrabee in Lincoln Park Reduces $80K”

  1. Chicagoland Case Shiller pricing is now back at 2002 levels and they’re still shooting for a gain relative to what they paid in 2004.

    When nobody bids even 570k for this they are going to learn that all that RE equity wealth they thought they had…was fleeting.

    0
    0
  2. $450K.

    0
    0
  3. A big garage door equals great curb appeal.

    0
    0
  4. “$450K.”

    4%/annum from ’92 price = ~$470k. So that’s about fair. Maybe even get to their ’04 price, but I doubt much above that.

    0
    0
  5. $455k!

    0
    0
  6. This will close at 525K+. I think these places hold up a lot better than units with high assessments like condos.

    0
    0
  7. this is awfully close to North Ave, that’s probably a bigger turn off than the price.

    0
    0
  8. I agree with skeptic, the intersection of North and Larrabee isn’t exactly the nicest in the neighborhood, it lacks the charm of some the other streets only a short distance away.

    0
    0
  9. I agree it lacks curb appeal and is too close to North Avenue. But think about how the neighborhood has changed since 1992 – lots of new development instead of old CHA high rises. big improvement.

    0
    0
  10. Steve Heitman on June 19th, 2009 at 8:27 pm

    You guys are just f’n stupid. Honestly, it is really funny!

    0
    0
  11. Steve Heitman on June 19th, 2009 at 8:34 pm

    429 w Grant did not get your memo on LP pricing being back at 2002 levels.

    Purchased for $409k in 2005 and sold today at $439k. Oops!

    Some make money and some lose money… such is life!

    0
    0
  12. 1st.

    one data point does not prove a statistical trend.

    0
    0
  13. The problem is that there is some ghetto housing near North and Larrabee. It doesn’t totally bring down the neighborhood but it does make the immediate block less desirable.

    0
    0
  14. Steve Heitman on June 19th, 2009 at 9:02 pm

    Exactly! Tell Sabrina…

    0
    0
  15. Steve Heitman on June 19th, 2009 at 9:13 pm

    Plus these townhomes are the only in the city that actually make you feel like you live in Schaumberg. They are brutal and this type of thing struggles in a good market and certainly will sit in a down market.

    0
    0
  16. “Some make money and some lose money… such is life!”

    Hey SHill, that’s not quite as catchy as “real estate always goes up,” is it?

    Glad to see you coming around.

    0
    0
  17. I inspected this property a few weeks ago. I guess it fell through.

    0
    0
  18. Steve Heitman on June 21st, 2009 at 7:26 am

    Hey G – I think the only thing I ever said was that “LP would remain much more stable than most other neighborhoods”

    I think this ended up being pretty darn accurate. My clients are lucky I helped steer them in the right direction.

    0
    0
  19. No No SH, IT was ‘LP wont decline’ and then ‘LP will hold its prices’ and now ‘LP will remain much more stable’.

    0
    0
  20. Steve Heitman on June 21st, 2009 at 9:42 am

    It did not “decline” and it did “hold” its prices and it is more “stable”. I think you just supported everything I said and the reality of the area.

    0
    0
  21. What I’m saying is first you were singing the tune of “Lincoln Park will only go up”. Then it was “Lincoln Park wont be affected by the bubble”. Now its “Much more stable than most other neighborhoods.

    The first statement implies it will always accrue in value.
    The second says it may not accrue in value, it wont drop either.
    The third says there might be a few places that drop but overall it is “stable”.

    You change your tune.

    0
    0
  22. Everytime a property is listed in LP, do we need to have the same debate and rehasing quotes from the last 6 months? Lets move on.

    0
    0
  23. The “reality” is that the Chicago valuation bubble is not fully popped yet. The upcoming Option ARM recasts may affect prime areas significantly. LP may escape major valuation drops but it’s too soon to say.

    0
    0
  24. Steve Heitman on June 22nd, 2009 at 8:40 am

    Hey A – I never said LP will always go up. Please find it if you think I did.

    Thanks,

    0
    0
  25. Steve Heitman on August 28th, 2008 at 11:55 am
    “Talk to me when prices are down. Youa re just speculating right now.”

    Steven Heitman on September 19th, 2008 at 7:13 am:
    “Mortgage rates will be back around 5% and off to the races we go. Looks like LP will escape with no down turn. Now who in the world predicted that?”

    Steve Heitman on May 3rd, 2009 at 8:19 am:
    “G, the typical 2 bed condo in Lincoln Park is off less than 5% in the past 2 years.”

    0
    0
  26. Arguing with people on the internet is like winning an event at the Special Olympics. You may win, but you are still a retard.

    Just saying…

    0
    0
  27. F**k you, Russ. I happen to know a few of those “retards,” all of who would no doubt make better company than you, a***ole.

    0
    0
  28. G, aren’t we a little sensitive this morning? I guess you completely missed the point…

    0
    0
  29. Please, you didn’t make one if I “missed” it.

    It was how you made it, d**khead.

    0
    0
  30. C’mon guys play nice. Especially this morning when we have the tasty morsel of the 701 S Wells owner who is obviously praying for someone to overpay for their unit by a cool 100k. Boy are they in for a shocker when they realize nobody is actually going to pay the assessed value on their tax bill..LMAO.

    Reminds me of that old Tom Green skit “Pizza Undercutters”..hahaha.

    0
    0
  31. Haha I knew someone would take offense to the special olympics comment from Russ.

    Its a joke, DUDE. Unless you are upset at him ribbing your co-workers G?

    0
    0
  32. “Its a joke, DUDE.”

    Aren’t “jokes” supposed to be funny? If that qualifies as a joke, so do G’s responses.

    Or is it supposed to fit under the “black comedian” exemption?

    0
    0
  33. Man, people are overly sensitive these days. I will have to hold back on the fat jokes too. I guess the only acceptable rib on here now is calling owners stupid or out of touch for over pricing their properties.

    0
    0
  34. “I will have to hold back on the fat jokes too. I guess the only acceptable rib on here now is calling owners stupid or out of touch for over pricing their properties.”

    Hey I’d rather be fat to be honest. At least if you’re fat you can goto the gym and make lifestyle changes to try to better your health and situation. If you were dumb enough to drink the RE Kool Aid during the bubble and are now underwater on your mortgage, well theres nothing you can do to turn back time and undo that stupid financial decision.

    0
    0
  35. “I will have to hold back on the fat jokes too.”

    Don’t make remarks about appalachia, either. Post will be deleted.

    0
    0
  36. No way, Bob. You can always make more money. But being fat is pretty much permanent. They don’t get skinnier, they get fatter.

    0
    0
  37. Who would have known that G, a cheerleader for misfortune, has a soft spot for ‘retards’? That’s so cute.

    G- show that same compassion for everyone, will you? You’d be a happier person.

    0
    0
  38. Steve Heitman on June 22nd, 2009 at 1:24 pm

    Hey G – The quotes you just printed did not exactly support my saying values always go up now do they. You just printed quotes to support exactly what I have been saying the whole time. LP is stable and has not declined in value!

    Thanks G!

    0
    0
  39. “Cheerleader for misfortune.”

    What misfortune? The return of affordability is a good thing and I am happy for everyone that it will continue for years and years to come.

    0
    0
  40. “The return of affordability is a good thing and I am happy for everyone that it will continue for years and years to come.”

    When has it ever been “affordable” or cost effective to live in the city? There’s about a million other places you could live that would make much more financial sense than the City of Chicago. People pay a premium to live here for a reason.

    0
    0
  41. Other than the bubble years, when hasn’t it been?

    You’re not from around here, are you Sonies?

    0
    0
  42. Steve Heitman on May 3rd, 2009 at 8:19 am:
    “G, the typical 2 bed condo in Lincoln Park is off less than 5% in the past 2 years.”

    Steve Heitman on June 22nd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
    “LP is stable and has not declined in value!”

    BTW, you blew that May LP attached YOY sales increase prediction by a lot. It didn’t stop you from the same nonsense for June YOY, either. How’s that coming along?

    0
    0
  43. Sonies, you and I both have come of age in a bubble, which has warped our generation’s thinking; easy credit and zero (or 3.5% down) loans has warped our view of what something is really worth. Easy money and speculation has warped the value of everything from colleges, to healthcare, to housing, to commodities ($5.00 a gallon gas last year? for real???), to the supposed premium of city living (and the many negatives that go with it)…

    0
    0
  44. “Other than the bubble years, when hasn’t it been?”

    Have you forgotten Jurgis Rudkus? I wouldn’t necessarily call his housing arrangements “affordable”.

    0
    0
  45. No way. Median Chicago rents are far above the rest of the midwest not because the City of Chicago keeps a floor on pricing due to their massive housing program ($37mm/year) but because people are just lining up to live here!

    Yes it MUST be worth $x because the city will put in a lower income person and pay $x for them.

    0
    0
  46. “Have you forgotten Jurgis Rudkus? I wouldn’t necessarily call his housing arrangements “affordable”.”

    No, but they did occur during an exploitation bubble.

    0
    0
  47. “Other than the bubble years, when hasn’t it been?”

    What, when Chicago was a crime ridden dump like the early 80’s? Where the only nice neighborhood in the city was the Gold Coast? Where are you from, Calumet City? Of course Real estate was more affordable 20-30 years ago… because living in the city SUCKED!

    0
    0
  48. “massive housing program” = “$37mm/year”

    That buys $672mm of housing at reasonable cap rates. Or 8,400 units at $80k per.

    You really think that ~1% (or less–about 1mm housing units) of Chicago housing units–almost all on the crap side of below average–drives up pricing of 2/2 and 3/2 condos on the Northside and SFHs in B’port & McK Park to any significant extent?

    0
    0
  49. “Of course Real estate was more affordable 20-30 years ago…”

    But, it is getting more affordable every day!

    0
    0
  50. There is a premium people pay to live in the thick of world class cities. In fact, I don’t know of any major city where the cost of living is really all that cheap. People want short commutes, walking distance to amenities, culture, events, etc.

    Is the market over built and overpriced relative to the financing that is available now? Yes, but again, I think those of you hoping to snag 2/2’s on the Gold Coast with lakeviews or LP for $200k are dreaming.

    If you want cheap houses and a lot of space, have fun in Plainfield or move to the ‘hood.

    0
    0
  51. “You really think that ~1% (or less–about 1mm housing units) of Chicago housing units–almost all on the crap side of below average–drives up pricing of 2/2 and 3/2 condos on the Northside and SFHs in B’port & McK Park to any significant extent?”

    Yes, yes I do. Here is why: the City’s subsidized housing creates a price floor for the more affordable units. 1/1s, 2/1s, whatever. Basically set the baseline against which private housing must compete.

    On the 37mm number that was actually a misquote, I read the article and it doesn’t relate to that, but I’d be willing to bet that the amount spent on subsidized housing in Chicago IS significant and it DOES affect the rest of Chicago real estate via the trickle up effect.

    If the city programs set a baseline that a landlord can get a $1100 monthly payment for a 2/1 dump of a slum house then you’re not going to see slum houses go for much less than the rental equivalent yield and landlords will step in to fill that need.

    Instead if there were no city subsidies economics dictates that the cost of housing all over the city would be lower.

    0
    0
  52. “Yes, but again, I think those of you hoping to snag 2/2’s on the Gold Coast with lakeviews or LP for $200k are dreaming.”

    Straw man. Who has ever “hoped” for that here?

    “Is the market over built and overpriced relative to the financing that is available now? Yes”

    How much worse is it at 7% or 8% mortgages? How about relative to rents?

    “Affordablity” is arbitrary, increased affordability is not. To me, it means ownership costs getting more in line with rents. That is where this is going, and with rising rates and falling rents – look out below!

    0
    0
  53. Steve Heitman on June 22nd, 2009 at 2:54 pm

    Hey G – Rates are actually coming down. You can now get a 30 year fixed for around 5% again. Where do you get 7 – 8%? Did that come out of your ass?

    0
    0
  54. “Instead if there were no city subsidies economics dictates that the cost of housing all over the city would be lower.”

    So, in 1985, w/o subsidies, houses in Roscoe Village would have traded hands for $10k instead of $25k?

    Notwithstanding expansion of the section 8 program and EHO laws, the location of rental apartments in Chicago are not–and have not been–fungible from the tenants’ perspective.

    If your argument is about setting a floor on teardown equivalents (for actual teardown or re-hab), that I can buy it. And the result is overvalued land in fringe (and worse) areas which drives up both raw land values in LP and the pricing of new/reno’d units in all areas.

    0
    0
  55. SHill, no answer to my question above? Maybe you missed it:

    You blew that May LP attached YOY sales increase prediction by a lot. It didn’t stop you from the same nonsense for June YOY, either. How’s that coming along?

    0
    0
  56. SHill, where did I say rates are 7-8%?

    0
    0
  57. “Where do you get 7 – 8%?”

    Don’t be belligerantly obtuse, Stevo. He’s asking about a (likely) future.

    0
    0
  58. Overvalued land and to an extent locations across the broader metropolitan area are somewhat fungible from a broader view. Sure Lincoln Park is not Uptown or Rogers Park, but from a bird’s eye view its a continuum where people at each area in between make choices on whether to move a block in X direction to save a few bucks, etc.

    Not just setting a floor for teardown equivalents but also setting a floor overall on rents. I moved from a smaller midwest city where it wasn’t uncommon to see the slums rent for under $500. Why that is $700 here in Chicago escapes me: its the same product, the minimum wage is the same, just a different city.

    0
    0
  59. Steve Heitman on June 22nd, 2009 at 3:10 pm

    He is a moron Anon! I think everyone knows that!

    attached properties contracted in…

    May of 2008 = 105
    May of 2009 = 104

    I said it would be more and it is one less. Oh the pain G! oh the pain!

    0
    0
  60. ““Of course Real estate was more affordable 20-30 years ago…”

    But, it is getting more affordable every day!”

    Not really… if mortgage rates rise dramatically, yes sales prices will go down, but your monthly nut will stay the same (or be worse)… so if you already own at say a less than 5% interest rate, who cares if interest rates go up? If I decide to move in a few years, I won’t sell it, I’ll just rent the place out, and have some other chump pay my principal for me.

    Obviously don’t buy something overpriced, but to say that everyone that owns a property now is screwed is wrong. Nobody has to sell anything, if they are smart and don’t spend every penny they earn.

    0
    0
  61. “Why that is $700 here in Chicago escapes me: its the same product, the minimum wage is the same, just a different city.”

    Ask any of those slum dwellers if they would move to your former home if they were given a house and money equal to all of their public assistance here in Chicago as “lottery winnings”. And even offer the same deal to each and every one of their extended family, so long as tehy all go. Most of them would turn you down flat.

    Most people don’t make economically rational decisions about in what city/metro they live. And you’re asking why people who are (in general) well below average on economic rationality (currency exchanges, car title loans, payday loans, anyone?) pay more in rent to live in Chicago?

    0
    0
  62. G:

    All of the bitter renters with $35k/yr jobs seems to think that soon they are going to be living large in LP as prices fall. I say that tongue in cheek, but that is pretty much the atmosphere on here.

    This city and others like it have always been expensive. As has been pointed out on here numerous times, incomes have never been in line with housing prices in any major city (Boston, LA, SF, Chicago, NY, DC, etc). Sorry, wastelands like Cleveland don’t count. I also don’t think rent necessarily reflects what people pay to own either. It might with short term owners, but when buyers are looking to settle I don’t think they are considering comparable rental costs.

    Of course, given the housing downturn, this behavior may change. If anything, we may see starter homes being redefined since it won’t be so easy to pick up and move out of a 2/2 condo once junior comes along like it has been. Many folks may start skipping condos altogether and go straight to the burbs.

    0
    0
  63. “I said it would be more and it is one less. Oh the pain G! oh the pain!”

    You did make a kinda big deal about May showing some recovery in sales. And that doesn’t look like a recovery in sales, esp after such a poor fall/winter/spring that one might expect would create some “pent up demand”.

    And, no, I am not going to track down your quote(s), b/c I don’t care that much.

    0
    0
  64. Right, SHill, if only you were talking about contracts and not sales.

    http://cribchatter.com/?p=6859#comment-37684

    0
    0
  65. “but to say that everyone that owns a property now is screwed is wrong.”

    Sonies, I never said that. Why did you make that up?

    0
    0
  66. “Of course, given the housing downturn, this behavior may change. If anything, we may see starter homes being redefined since it won’t be so easy to pick up and move out of a 2/2 condo once junior comes along like it has been. Many folks may start skipping condos altogether and go straight to the burbs.”

    You mean, do what people did for the better part of the post-ww2 period? I never conceived of a condo as a “starter home”, and woodstock happened before I was a twinkle.

    And, if that happens, what will happen to the er-sale prices of all of those 2/2s?

    0
    0
  67. “Sonies, I never said that. Why did you make that up?”

    He hoped you wouldn’t get it, becuase you are a moron(!)? And everyone knows that(!)?

    0
    0
  68. “As has been pointed out on here numerous times, incomes have never been in line with housing prices in any major city (Boston, LA, SF, Chicago, NY, DC, etc).”

    By all means, Russ, prove it. You seem to have Chicago in a group that it never has been equal to in income:price ratio.

    “Of course, given the housing downturn, this behavior may change.”

    It was during the bubble that it changed. Did you work in the mortgage/RE biz prior to the bubble? My guess is no.

    0
    0
  69. “And, if that happens, what will happen to the er-sale prices of all of those 2/2s?”

    Probably not much, as there is always a large flux of douchey suburb transplants flocking back to their home grounds whenever the wifey feels the need to crap out more than one kid.

    GRASSSS!!! MUST… HAVE… GRASSSSS!!!!!

    0
    0
  70. “Probably not much, as there is always a large flux of douchey suburb transplants flocking back ”

    Dude, don’t talk about HD that way!

    But seriously, you read too fast–I was asking Russ what will happen to 2/2 condos if buyers of starter homes skip buying city condos and return to ‘burban tract houses as their starter homes. He’s theorizing that condo values won’t drop AND that it’s possible that city condos will drop out of the market of the average starter home buyer.

    0
    0
  71. “incomes have never been in line with housing prices in any major city (Boston, LA, SF, Chicago, NY, DC, etc). Sorry, wastelands like Cleveland don’t count.”

    While this is true to a large extent, why is Boston or DC not considered wastelands as well? The former has crumbling infrastructure, terrible weather and a crazy cost of living and the latter, well most of DC is akin to a third world country.

    So I understand why its cheap to live in Cleveland, I just don’t understand why its not almost as cheap to live in DC.

    Anon(tfo)’s point is probably the best rationale yet why these discrepancies exist. Because thats what the cost of living there has historically been going back forever (and government programs play a role too I’m convinced–look at rent controlled NY).

    “Many folks may start skipping condos altogether and go straight to the burbs.”

    Agreed. Among my circle of friends nobody is talking about owning anymore or even the desire to do so, I guess the headlines are finally sinking in. However I think this downturn won’t affect the entry level as much as FHA is keeping a floor on that and helping add volume where it otherwise wouldn’t be.

    The _real deals_ over the next 2-5 years I predict will be the 500k-1MM segment. No government programs to help prop up the volume so I expect this segment to take the biggest haircuts. Essentially 2006’s $1MM home could wind up dropping to $600k but 2006’s $350k home might only drop to $285k.

    0
    0
  72. “government programs play a role too I’m convinced–look at rent controlled NY”

    The effect on NYC has mostly been to discourage the construction of new “affordable” (for Manhattan) rental buildings. As a result, there is much less supply than demand in Mnahattan–a problem we aren’t likely to have in Chicago in the near future in any category other than “family housing in ‘good’ attendance areas”.

    “The _real deals_ over the next 2-5 years I predict will be the 500k-1MM segment.”

    I think these are less likely to constitute real “deals” (b/c they are some of the most overpriced–other than the apparent-fraud proeprties), altho I agree that these are the properties most likely to see the largest percentage drops when they have to move, b/c of the much more constrained pool of potential buyers.

    0
    0
  73. The reason for the higher price ratios, if it could be said that there was one prior to the bubble, is that we’re all a bunch of elitist class snobs who couldn’t fathom living in a neighborhood that wasn’t filled with other urban professional class snobs like ourselves. Unfortunately there has never been enough ‘gentrified’ neighborhoods to fit all of the elitist class snobs; quite a few neighborhoods did gentrify enough during the bubble unfortunately they also had bubble pricing. Currently there are vast swaths of ‘affordable’ 3.0x income neighborhoods in the city of chicago but none of you would even think of living in Canaryville, Hedgewisch, Back of the Yards, Mt. Greenwood, West Rogers, etc. So as long as the Big 10 grads continue to stream into Chicago and settle down and look at the same four neighborhoods, prices will remain elevated, and may always do so. It’s not necessarily a premium per se as much as it is a lack of supply of completely gentrified neighborhoods in the City.

    0
    0
  74. “So as long as the Big 10 grads continue to stream into Chicago and settle down and look at the same four neighborhoods, prices will remain elevated, and may always do so.”

    Sure, but the median and average were skewed upward by the “nice neighborhoods” even in the darkest days of the 70s. And the pressure on the 4 (or 8 or whatever) “desireable” ‘hoods would be lessened if one could choose to live in, eg, OIP in a SFH for $275k, instead of $525k—because, all else equal, more (but not all) people would choose to live in a SFH in LV for $525 over the same house in OIP for $525, which causes the LV house to be bid up, etc.

    The Galewood house posted today is a perfect example. $199k is a little north of what it should be, but it’s close to the ‘hood based curve of housing prices that let things work.

    And the other problem (which I’ve harped on before) is the LV cottage (like the Addison one from last week) that “should be” about $300k is $500k b/c that’s what a condo developer would have paid to tear the house down and build 3 overpriced condos.

    0
    0
  75. I agree with you on that; the teardown value was the floor price for ANY residential unit. Oh your house is crap? It’s worth $400k at least because some developer could tear it down and build a mcmansion or three flat.

    “And the other problem (which I’ve harped on before) is the LV cottage (like the Addison one from last week) that “should be” about $300k is $500k b/c that’s what a condo developer would have paid to tear the house down and build 3 overpriced condos.”

    0
    0
  76. Re: Price to Income Ratios:

    This: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/son2007/metro_affordability_index_2007.xls

    is not the most recent chart, but provides teh historical perspective for housing “affordability” in Chicago compared to ” Boston, LA, SF, Chicago, NY, DC, etc”.

    The data shows that the only “major” city that was really comparable to Chicago before the recent bubble (i.e., pre-2000) was Washington. Chicago “more affordable” than the **national** average throughout the 80s and equal to or slightly less affordable than average throughout the 90s. DC was equal to or less affordable than Chicago from 1980 thru 1991 and has had a considerably bigger bubble after being roughly the same thru the 90s.

    And, yes, the rest of the Rust Belt cities have been highly affordable throught the past 30 years. Except Milwaukee, which has stuck quite close to Chicago in its P:I ratio.

    0
    0
  77. Steve Heitman on June 22nd, 2009 at 7:38 pm

    Question for G – Is declining volumes leads to declining prices than how do you explain 2000 – 2004 volumes and the subsequent price movement.

    Thanks in advance my G dog!

    0
    0
  78. “I think these are less likely to constitute real “deals” (b/c they are some of the most overpriced–other than the apparent-fraud proeprties), altho I agree that these are the properties most likely to see the largest percentage drops when they have to move, b/c of the much more constrained pool of potential buyers.”

    Not on a cost per square foot basis. In non-prime hoods when you start getting closer to 1MM you start getting things like double lots and outdoor pools, if you so desire. Much bigger than 2x the square foot of a 500k house generally. With no government programs to support this segment and high jumbo rates they will take the deepest haircuts.

    “is that we’re all a bunch of elitist class snobs who couldn’t fathom living in a neighborhood that wasn’t filled with other urban professional class snobs like ourselves”

    People are naturally gravitated to their own kind, nothing too snobbish about that, IMO. Funny story though while I do live in one of those “elitist” hoods recently I ran into a young gal who mentioned she equated one of the non-prime ‘hoods with being a suburb!

    I guess I’ve done that before with Galewood but this hood was much, much closer in. I would’ve laughed it off as she works at subway but she’s hot so even if her opinions are idiotic I’m glad she lives near me.

    0
    0
  79. Steve Heitman on June 22nd, 2009 at 7:49 pm

    Here is what you are missing. People will no longer pay a lot of money to live in abig useless houses in shitty locations. People will and have always been willing to pay up to live in smaller places in great locations. The McMansions are a thing of the past. The million $$ perfect location in here to stay!

    Oh and by the way… the suburbs suck and will never be the choice of the upper class.

    0
    0
  80. odd how Milwaukee kept pace.

    0
    0
  81. arent kenilworth and lake forest filled with upper class? I remember kenliworth having the highest income per capita for the entire country at one point. maybe not anymore but at least at that point it was the choice of upper crusties.

    0
    0
  82. Tell it like it is! No longer do we need to breathe the vapors of Delphi for predictions of the future – we can just inhale the hot air coming from Steve Heitman!

    “#Steve Heitman on June 22nd, 2009 at 7:49 pm

    Here is what you are missing. People will no longer pay a lot of money to live in abig useless houses in shitty locations. People will and have always been willing to pay up to live in smaller places in great locations. The McMansions are a thing of the past. The million $$ perfect location in here to stay!

    Oh and by the way… the suburbs suck and will never be the choice of the upper class.”

    0
    0
  83. Bob if you think Boston and DC are comparable to Cleveland you have obviously never stepped foot in either of them.

    Look at the amount of land available for real estate in Boston relative to demand and tell me how in the hell that relates to Chicago at all. Not to mention higher incomes and salaries on the east coast.

    0
    0
  84. and Bob, Boston does not have crumbling infrastructure. If anything the Big dig and subsequent follow-up repairs has allowed corrupt politicians and unions to create the most expensive infrastructure in the US.

    Not to mention you’ve probably never heard of chevy chase, adams morgan and Georgetown if you call DC 3rd world.

    0
    0
  85. Ned.. DC is a pseudo city… Chicago blows away DC

    0
    0
  86. and Adams Morgan? Bunch of drunks doing the bar crawl… maybe if you said Kalorama you can get some points. At least you didn’t say Bethesda… nothing but lots of unpleasant people with bad restaurants and ugly girls.

    0
    0
  87. and if you were familiar with Bob you would know he was referring to all the shvatzas in NE DC.

    Truth is that part is much better these days. Now Baltimore..Wow!

    0
    0
  88. Steve was surely drunk when he told us about the choices of the upper class. Maybe Bob can tell us which Lincoln Park dollar beer night Steve attended.

    0
    0
  89. Ned Flanders,

    I used to live outside of DC when I was little. Who the hell are you kidding? Please go back to the Simpsons.

    Most of DC is worse than most of the southside of Chicago. I am being entirely serious.

    On even a percentage basis there are many more nicer neighborhoods in Chicago than Washington, DC. Please step away from the touristy areas and the few good neighborhoods near Georgetown and the Capitol (Georgetown). I am talking DC overall, most of which the media ignores.

    Please go back to your episode of the Simpsons from whence you came.

    0
    0
  90. What a freaking joke a K-street fan trying to pitch DC as somewhat livable. Unless you got two govvie salaries you can’t afford to send one youngin to private school Ned, if you got two you can afford to send one.

    Haha and Boston is livable too? Yeah Boston is only “hawt” because of that atrocious accent. Very little redeeming about most neighborhoods to justify the cost of living and snobbery factor. The yuppie equivalent of Beantown is WAAAAYY more snobby and annoying than anything Chicago has to offer.

    I’ve never set foot in both? You are a tardface Ned Flanders.

    0
    0
  91. No Ze, most smart money does not live in DC, only the rich who don’t care about an extra 4% income tax, or the poor who don’t pay taxes (and theres far more of the poor on a percentage basis). Any middle or upper-middle class family learns that its better to live outside ‘the DC’ and get an instant 4% raise.

    Sure a bunch of fresh out of ivy league public policy grads might inhabit some ‘hoods, but their livin’ the debt dream and don’t care about taxes or cost of living more than likely and have no savings.

    DC is a quagmire. Some of their mayors have been crackheads and been re-elected. I’m not sure if its preferable to being corrupt or not but its pretty funny.

    I bet Ned Flanders has to get back to the Obama rally right about now, lol! What a freakin’ tool.

    0
    0

Leave a Reply