A Single Family Home in the Heart of Bucktown: 2032 W. Churchill
It doesn’t get more Bucktown than this 3-bedroom single family home at 2032 W. Churchill which is just a short stroll to the shops, restaurants and CTA stop on Damen.
Is this house an alternative to the big duplex down units we’ve been chattering about in other parts of the city?
It has 2 bedrooms upstairs and one bedroom (or den, according to the listing) in the basement, along with the family room.
The house does have central air and a two car garage. It also has more than 1 bathroom, which is a selling point.
The kitchen lacks stainless steel appliances and granite countertops but, as the listing says, the house appears to be “move in ready.”
Tobi Soraghan at @Properties has the listing. See the pictures and a virtual tour here.
2032 W. Churchill: 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, 2 car garage
- Sold in May 1996 for $218,000
- Sold in August 1999 for $370,000
- Sold in January 2003 for $472,500
- Sold in September 2007 for $585,000
- Currently listed at $619,900
- Taxes of $6688
- Central Air
- Bedroom #1: 13×13
- Bedroom #2: 12×11
- Bedroom #3: 13×8 (lower level)
- Family room (lower level)
Somewhere between 03 and 07 seems a better “starting point”
“Somewhere between 03 and 07 seems a better “starting point””
But, if one is prepared to close at 10% off, and people have been making 20% off opening offers (don’t know if this is true, but plausible, based on anecdotes), then this listing price could make sense. There seems to be a fair bit of negotiation pseudo-psychology being played with.
Or, this is just an oblivious owner, oblivious agent, or both.
“then this listing price could make sense.”
Any potential bidder who bases their bid off of a completely arbitrary ask price as opposed to the intrinsic value/rental equivalence of a place like this is a tardface.
Its a nice place though I don’t doubt some idiot with buy this place with 10% down or less.
“Its a nice place though I don’t doubt some idiot with buy this place with 10% down or less.”
So, you’re calling $463k? Or can you tell us who’s making 80/10 Jumbos loans?
“rental equivalence of a place like this”
Okay, smart guy, tell us how you figure that out. What’s a reno’d SFH rent for in this area?
Current owner’s mtg is for $417k, no second. Looks like the owner laddered up thru a couple condos, rolling all of the cumulative gain into the dp for this place.
If that’s *really* the best picture of the front of the house, I think it’s uggo. Very pleasant inside, and nice backyard, tho.
The metra is in your backyard……….
Did anyone catch that it’s agent owned and brokered?
Seriously look at the sales of this home, and more than 80% didnt see the bubble coming?
# Sold in May 1996 for $218,000
# Sold in August 1999 for $370,000
# Sold in January 2003 for $472,500
# Sold in September 2007 for $585,000
Currently listed at $619,900
why would the seller and their agent price this above 2007 prices. when we saw the home yesterday under contract in 2 weeks at the 2003 price?
man do i hate bucktown
Grove77, what’s even more surprising, and I’m honestly shocked, was that every transaction had money down. I thought for sure there would have been a zero down in there but nope, everybody put money down. Sort of ironic that the realtor drank the kool-aid and is now stuck holding the bag.
“a on August 13th, 2009 at 7:38 am
The metra is in your backyard……….”
nope, this house is on the other side of the street. Even numbers addresses are on the north side of the street. I’m sure you can hear the trains when you’re outside but any good set of new double pane windows should block most of that in-doors.
“why would the seller and their agent price this above 2007 prices. when we saw the home yesterday under contract in 2 weeks at the 2003 price?”
because the seller (most likely) is only willing to sell at a price where they break even. Most people can not accept loosing tens of thousands of dollars, even if those dollars were not real and only came from selling a previous bubble property.
Plus they (mostlikely) believe their property to be the one special place not impacted by the ecomony or other faccets of reality.
Check out Real Estate Intervention: no matter what blatent evidence the seller shes, they always justify that their home is better and worth more
Eh. For this kind of $$ for a 3 BR, I don’t want one of the BR’s to be in the basement.
$500K.
“why would the seller and their agent price this above 2007 prices.”
as HD mentioned, the agent is the owner of this place…
wait i thought you cant list a bedroom if its more that three steps below grade.
hd,
cant believe a Realtor didnt see the bubble or even the current market. its sad to see
i so hate bucktown!
I dont think any trains run on those tracks. I like this place though it may be ugly out front. Kind of surprised it went for under 600 2 years ago.
Love the prison style white brick facade on the front side and yellow vynil on the rest, the bland 1997 white everything. This looks like it was a rental! The ONLY thing nice about this place is the small backyard and small deck. But its pretty hard to screw something like that up. The rest is a trainwreck.
620k for this POS in sucktown? You couldn’t pay me 200k to live in this shithole. Another brainiac realtor specuvestor that is going to be caught holding the bag that’s for sure! Tough titties moron! Enjoy your chapter 7.
The railway across the street is discussed in detail in this week’s Reader… no trains, but joggers, cyclists, loutish teenagers.
Sonies
“You couldn’t pay me 200k to live in this shithole”
Arent you the guy saving up for a 1 bedroom?
“Check out Real Estate Intervention”
This is exactly what people need to see. After 5 years of “Flip that House” where substitute teachers were buying $1mm houses, installing granite counter tops, and selling them for $1.3mm, people need a dose of reality. Real Estate Intervention does show how irrational sellers are and how sellers ALWAYS think their place is better than everyone elses.
One potential unsupportable bright spot…These shows only tend to air when the cycle is at its end…so maybe the fact that there is now a show on the declining housing market could imply we’ve hit bottom. Obviously empirical data out there refutes this…
I’d happily live in this house, just not for the asking price. Great location, near a dog park, decent restaurants, Damen El stop. It’s plenty big enough for a small, young family. It’s a pretty nice street, too. I really like Bucktown – – I thinks it’s a great location, convenient to everything I need except for the lake.
I’ll be curious to see what this goes for. I won’t be surprised if someone is willing to pay near the ask just because it’s a SFH with yard in the heart of Bucktown and a short walk from the El. I think a lot of folks would rather have an older SFH than a newer duplex condo with a granite/stainless kitchen.
“Arent you the guy saving up for a 1 bedroom?”
No, I recently purchased a 2/2 in RN. You’re thinking of Bob or homedelete
Thanks for throwing me under the bus, Sonies. I’m waiting for the currently priced at a half million dollar bungalows on the NW side to become more reasonable. We’ve still got a way to go. By the way a former owner of this place is a biglaw lawyer. Sort of funny that now its a realtor who owns it.
i fricken hate wickerpark/bucktown
this place has a nice yard!!!!!! small but not too small a nice size.
This place will sell, some stupid yuppie or hipster will buy it for 598k then the yuppie will go shopping on the HELOC at the crate and barrel to furnish it cause he/she will think the saved 30k on the deal.
or the hipster will go get another 3 tattoo’s cause he/she thought they saved 30k to live in an area people just like them.
yeah you can tell the groove had a bad morning
did i tell you guys that i hate bucktown?
“The metra is in your backyard……….”
Haha. That’s never been a Metra line and hasn’t been used at all for quite some time.
Of course, it’s a long way from being developed as a really usable trail–2016 is the current target.
No hipster will be buying this. Hipsters don’t have this kind of money.
There aren’t enough kool-aid drinking RE professionals left to buy this Above the 2007 price.
“So, you’re calling $463k?”
Now that I think about it, yes. Maybe 472.5k for the psychological benefit of the owner.
“What’s a reno’d SFH rent for in this area?”
$2500-2750, check craigslist.
http://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/apa/1321001597.html
Given that this place is relatively nice and priced close to a newer 3/2.1 condo in the area, my guess is that it will sell pretty soon. The house must be fairly short to have that yard – normally you get about 10 feet until you hit the stairs up to a hideous deck on top of your garage. Hate those decks! Hanging out a whole 12 feet above alley/rats/garbage with the power lines. Gross!
Groove: I love Bucktown. I’ll probably go take a look at this place because I was interested in it when it was last on the market as well. I still think it’s priced high given the kitchen and only 2 non-basement bedrooms.
As for the metra/trail, as long as you aren’t on the same side of the street as the trail (here it would be the south side of Churchill), you are fine and probably wouldn’t view it as a pro or con. If you are on the same side, you had better hope that you don’t have windows on that side of your house or you’ll get bricks thrown through them – I’ve seen it happen east and west of Western Ave.
“Sonies on August 13th, 2009 at 8:44 am
620k for this POS in sucktown? You couldn’t pay me 200k to live in this shithole”
No, I recently purchased a 2/2 in RN.”
Ceteris Paribus, I would take Bucktown over River North all day, every day.
“You’re thinking of Bob or homedelete”
No I’m saving up for a SFH. See you RE owners in 2014 at the bottom when creative financing has finally been shaken out and earnest money means something again.
“Ceteris Paribus, I would take Bucktown over River North all day, every day.”
I knew there had to be some reason I couldn’t stand you bradford. Its all so clear to me now..
“$2500-2750, check craigslist.”
Yeah, yeah. But people I know who are in the house-sized market in Chicago are more averse to moving than typical apartment renters/owners. You assign no premium, most people (at least those looking at houses, and not expecting to be short-timers) do.
hd, hipsters transplanted from hinsdale, northshore, other states can afford this! when they get knocked up the future grandparents will throw $$$$$ at them.
jon, say it aint so, say it aint so.
given it pains me to say this, oh the pain, i would take bucktown over river north too 🙁
“Bob on August 13th, 2009 at 9:12 am
I knew there had to be some reason I couldn’t stand you bradford. Its all so clear to me now…”
Now it becomes clear to you? After I’ve been basically calling you a fvcking retard for weeks on end? Nice job.
“most people (at least those looking at houses, and not expecting to be short-timers) do.”
And they do at their own folly. If anything there _should be_ a discount to owning vs. renting because of the decreased flexibility of owning and the transaction costs involved.
But alas the home ownership propaganda is so engrained in our society over the past several decades and it is very much intertwined with “success”. And lets not forget a large segment of the population has a stronger nesting instinct than financial sense.
In fact America might be a better place if we redefined “home ownership” to only include those with a clear title to their property. If the bank has your deed and can foreclose you if you don’t pay them every month you really don’t own much of anything. You’re just renting from the bank, essentially.
This house isn’t terribly over priced. It will probably go around the ’07 price, maybe a bit less. The bigger issue is that the house is butt ass ugly. The interior looks decent, but the curb appeal is god awful.
Actually, let me revise my guestimate… I say $500k-$525k. I don’t think the exterior is going to be forgiven by current market purchasers.
bob,
i know you are well versed on the rent or own thing.
its a personal preferance thing.
take out the whole financial aspect of it and look at it as a home. I look at it that way and gave up renting. *i wanted more space *privacy *my own back yard *my rent not to go up every year *not having to deal with crazy neighbors or loud ones sharing a wall or celling/floor between us.
i looked at my house purchase as not a financial investment but as a HOME purchase to live in and grow in.
You are aware that you can rent SFRs, right Groove77?
bradford
seriously, come on, seriously?
Interesting point, Bob. I’ve always looked at owning as renting from the bank, which is why I factored in an increase of my monthly rent to get to my mortgage payment ~15%, to low ball the tax benefit I’d see at EOY. It’s worked well for me – I’m “renting” a nicer place, have actually stayed in one neighborhood for 2x as long as I had anywhere else, and make modifications to my place as I see fit.
The trade off is that I have financial pain to take if I want to move.
Oh, and I enjoy living in Wicker/Bucktown which may be self evident, mainly for the transportation access, dining, entertainment, and quick shopping options that I can walk to. I lived in RN for some time, really like high rise living as well. SFH would be a nice splurge, but not in the cards at the moment.
i like renting from the bank than from a landlord. I get a better deal.
Owning really is just renting from the bank, especially if you are underwater!
“If the bank has your deed ”
You still don’t get it. It’s not a car loan. The bank doesn’t hold title. If the bank has a deed, it’s REO.
So, you’re going to hold out until you can pay cash, or are you a do as I say, not as I do kind of guy?
Groove: bradford was mocking Bob.
Groove77,
You can have everything you mentioned with renting except not having the payment go up every year. Yeah with owning your P&I is fixed, but your taxes, insurance and HOA aren’t.
Also due to our convuluted tax code owning makes more sense for some relative to others due to the mortgage interest deduction. It means someones after tax cost of owning can very greatly depending on their income, family size, etc. A huge distortion on the market and a travesty, really.
“Groove77 on August 13th, 2009 at 9:31 am
bradford
seriously, come on, seriously?”
You listed (or at least implied) 5 reasons for owning a home, 4 of which really have nothing to do with owning vs. renting.
“Groove: bradford was mocking Bob.”
Actually, I wasn’t this time!
this is a nice part of bucktown, green, lots of young people with young families. I could see it going for more than 500K, which is unfortunate but people have valued this location and the properties for that amount. Moreover the area does command rental dollars and attention.
“So, you’re going to hold out until you can pay cash, or are you a do as I say, not as I do kind of guy?”
When I speak of being adverse to ownership I am speaking of today. If housing has a protracted trough and I believe I can time it reasonably well, it would make sense to tie to a highly leveraged asset that also provides a high utility value (place to live). Also the government heavily subsidizes home ownership so why not take advantage of that?
Home ownership makes more sense when appreciation is thrown into the mix, as we’ve seen over the past decade.
Mike Aubrey rules.
” HOA ”
Actually, Bob, my and Groove’s HOA are fixed. It’s zero. Every year.
“Also due to our convuluted tax code owning makes more sense for some relative to others due to the mortgage interest deduction. It means someones after tax cost of owning [an apartment building] can very greatly depending on their income, [ownershipstructure], etc. A huge distortion on the market and a travesty, really.”
Your rent is most likely less b/c of current and historic tax advantages given to the owners and prior owners of your building. You, too, benefit from the travesty of market distortions.
“Actually, I wasn’t this time!”
WOW. It seemed so right.
bob anon,
what factors of ownership-structure / income plays into the housing benefits besides phaseouts, due to too high of an income?
> why would the seller and their agent price this above 2007 prices.
Again, price paid for an asset has nothing to do with it’s current value. This goes up or down. Just because I paid X in 2007 does not mean the value is x-(x*10%) in 2009. Nor does it mean that the value is x+(x*10%).
“You listed (or at least implied) 5 reasons for owning a home, 4 of which really have nothing to do with owning vs. renting.”
Bradford, you are correct i listed what I was looking for not the difference between renting and owning. thats why i said “ITS A PERSONAL PREFERENCE THING”
you, bob, and HD, choose to rent for financial reasons and doing so you saved yourself money and missing the RE crash. and the was your personal preference to do so.
i dont want to rent anymore since i tasted the apple of SFH ownership. i know i know the bank owns my home so lets say i enjoy having my home on layaway 🙂
again i took the financial aspect of my purchase out of it, and purchased a home not an INVESTMENT. (given i do wish i got some appreciation in 7 years)
and last fall i didnt like my bathroom so i gutted it tok me three weeks to finish and now have a brand new bathroom without moving to a new place to rent 🙂
“what factors of ownership-structure / income plays into the housing benefits besides phaseouts, due to too high of an income?”
Applicable marginal rate is one.
And I just inserted the first thing that came ot mind in lieu of “family size”. I really don’t spend a lot of time contemplating the implications of changed-circumstance re-writes. pithy changes are better, even if not entirely accurate. BUT, being allowed to own single assets separately; bankruptcy-remoteness for lending (which is totally DOA for now; thx GGP); depreciation; etc.
bradford,
if you would like to have a pissing match i am down cause mine will be wind assisted.
“you, bob, and HD, choose to rent ”
You seem to be addressing me. I don’t rent; I own a condo.
I have no strange affections to renting or owning. If a net present value analysis of renting proved to be advantageous, I’d be happy to go that route. However, there aren’t a lot of 4000 square foot condos like mine available in the rental market.
doesn’t city housing code state you cannot have a basement bedroom unless it has a window that opens and is suitable for egress in case of fire?
I don’t think they should be calling that basement room anything other than a den.
“Ceteris Paribus, I would take Bucktown over River North all day, every day.”
Nothing is the same between the two hoods though… And if you’re saying you’d pay the same to live in RN as you would in bucktown, well you’re crazy. One hood is nice & conveinent to everything including the loop, the lake, the parks, the highway, the rail lines, fine dining, shopping, pretty much anything you could desire, while being more busy & slightly more noisy.
The other hood is a former puerto rican gang territory that has somehow managed to gentrify during this ‘easy money’ boom. Oh and there’s about 10x the hipster density in this hood which sucks
logansquarean,
Realtors(tm) have a professional code of ethics and I doubt that there would be an instance where any Realtor(tm) would ever bend or break that code in order to help facilitate a sale.
oops assumed that you rented cause you were so pro rent.
“If a net present value analysis of renting proved to be advantageous, I’d be happy to go that route.”
i say this the third time, TAKE OUT THE FINANCIAL ASPECT!
“4000 square foot condo” ok yours may be wind assisted 😉
“The other hood is a former puerto rican gang territory that has somehow managed to gentrify during this ‘easy money’ boom.”
dude you are so right on this one, i got my nose broken back in the day by a bunch of gangbangers across from the Burger king. and then three weeks later got into a huge brawl in the middle of milwaukee with a differnt gang the the previous one. (that one i only got a busted lip.)
I’m not against owning at all. I’ve said time and time again that many homes are overpriced compared to what people can reasonably afford without resorting to insane DTI ratios or exotic financing with no money down. I figured this out in about 2005 when I realized I’m a lawyer, I have a decent income, a down payment, and all I can afford is a crappy 2/1 condo conversion. I’m a lawyer for goodness sakes I don’t need to buy in Rogers Park. The market didn’t make sense to me. and my intuition combined with a bit of research proved me right. Things are coming back around but we’ve still got a ways to go. Don’t forget, IL is #5 in foreclosure filings for July 2009, and areas like LP had a 161% increase in the number of filings….the alt-a tsunami has arrived.
4000 sq feet seems a bit ostentatious for me. I couldn’t imagine spending my saturday afternoons cleaning that place and I’m as hell not going to pay someone to come and do it for me. 2,000 seems just about right.
Great area. Close to Metra, huge plus. Nice back yard, ugly exterior, maybe those cancle each other out.
My guess on sale price — $560K.
Actually Bucktown is just as yuppie as LP and Lakeview now. My old boss a 60 year old Bank SVP just bought a SFH in bucktown and his friends are right down the street! (both moved to the city from the burbs) I’m sure there home is well over $1MM range. But goes to show the people on this blog have no idea how quickly neigborhoods change. BT is not just for hipsters.
“i say this the third time, TAKE OUT THE FINANCIAL ASPECT!”
Then owning IS AWESOME! And I would like a three car garage for my Ford GT, Acura NSX and Lexus LS hybrid.
River North is like Loop Lite. Put simply: It sucks. *shrug*
thanks anon, if anybody had info on ownership structure, would be very appreciated.
“The other hood is a former puerto rican gang territory ”
Yeah, as was Armitage and Halsted.
River North used to be (one of several) Skid Rows.
“One hood is nice & conveinent to everything including the loop, the lake, the parks, the highway, the rail lines, fine dining, shopping, pretty much anything you could desire”
I don’t know how you say that Bucktown is convenient to the Lake. (haha–but the rest is bascially true of both, depending on your view of what consistutes each of those things.)
bob,
“Then owning IS AWESOME! And I would like a three car garage for my Ford GT, Acura NSX and Lexus LS hybrid.”
dude, now thats getting ridiculous. you know what i mean even if i didnt say it clearly.
i still hate bucktown
“BT is not just for hipsters”
BT, proper, hasn’t been for true hipsters in over a decade. Hell, the “hipsters” I knew 15 years ago (who lived in greater WP/BT) lived west of Western or south of Division, which ain’t BT.
Bucktown used to be for hipsters. now they live in Pilsen, West pilsen (little village) and logan. Just like wicker park used to be hipsters before they were called hipsters and wore skinny jeans.
“River North is like Loop Lite. Put simply: It sucks. *shrug*”
Well that’s your opinion and I respect that but I can say that RN is nothing like the Loop. RN is booming on the weekends and during the week, the Loop, well… its dead after 7PM and a ghost town on the weekends with nothing but Millenium park going for it, which I can easily walk to from RN 🙂
“The other hood is a former puerto rican gang territory that has somehow managed to gentrify during this ‘easy money’ boom.”
Exactly. Take into account the fact that it gentrified when doing your silly River North vs. Bucktown analysis.
“dude you are so right on this one, i got my nose broken back in the day by a bunch of gangbangers across from the Burger king. and then three weeks later got into a huge brawl in the middle of milwaukee with a differnt gang the the previous one. (that one i only got a busted lip.)”
As you say, BACK IN THE DAY. Now you only have to go to Lincoln Park to get all jacked up in the middle of the night by the roving gangs kicking dudes as$es.
“The other hood is a former puerto rican gang territory that has somehow managed to gentrify during this ‘easy money’ boom.”
Exactly. Take into account the fact that it gentrified when doing your silly River North vs. Bucktown analysis.
“dude you are so right on this one, i got my nose broken back in the day by a bunch of gangbangers across from the Burger king. and then three weeks later got into a huge brawl in the middle of milwaukee with a differnt gang the the previous one. (that one i only got a busted lip.)”
As you say, BACK IN THE DAY. Now you only have to go to Lincoln Park to get all jacked up in the middle of the night by the roving gangs kicking dudes’ as$es.
Oh and did you guys know that you can’t take dogs to Millenium park? wtf! My dog took a crap in the grass there and this bum got all pissed at me and was yellin “Aw man what the #$@%! I sleep there and a dog be taking a $%^@!” and I thought to myself “…sigh…”
sonies,
but river north is like 70% tool’s there. its close to everything but if you go for a jog a night you have to run around 30 drunken tourists
Sorry for double-posting. No worse than Groove posting 10 times a day that he hates Bucktown I guess.
“i still hate bucktown”
Me too. Yeah so what BT and WP aren’t full of “genuine” hipsters anymore. They’re filled with followers on and other idiots. Some are genuine yups (not crazy tattoed alt or emo yups either) who live there just because more people their age range live there and they don’t want to consider themselves a yuppie or typical post collegiate crowd by living in LP/LV.
There are no decent drink specials there and the bars generally suck. So they come out to my neck of the woods to drink (the non tattoed ones who never got addicted to MTV2) and feel more sophisticated than LP/LV drunks because they’re oh so trendy and ‘get it’. To paraphrase Pink Floyd they think they’re a laugh but they’re really a cry.
hehhehheehe jon made a funny 🙂
no seriously i dislike bucktown!
“sonies,
but river north is like 70% tool’s there. its close to everything but if you go for a jog a night you have to run around 30 drunken tourists”
Oh god its not that bad. Lakeview is 10x worse in my opinion with all the frat boy cub fans & stroller pushers. My building is all 25-40 year olds and I think there are a whopping 2 families with kids there out of 100+ units, and one of them is trying to sell (lol). Plus why the hell would you jog at night?
“homedelete on August 13th, 2009 at 10:20 am
4000 sq feet seems a bit ostentatious for me. I couldn’t imagine spending my saturday afternoons cleaning that place and I’m as hell not going to pay someone to come and do it for me. ”
In order for it to be ostentatious, I’d have to give a crap what other people think. My wife and I bought the space (and gutted it) in order to please ourselves, not anyone else.
There’s really not a lot of incremental cleaning involved with a larger home; I’m not sure why people often say that. Kitchens and bathrooms are your main cleaning zones, and it’s basically a fixed amount. 200 square foot bathroom = toilet, 2 sinks, and a shower. 1000 square foot bathroom = toilet, 2 sinks, and a shower. What’s the difference?
The rest of the place is super low maintenance – concrete floors get swept with a wide broom every couple weeks, mopped every couple months, that’s it. *shrug*
“Sonies on August 13th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Oh god its not that bad. Lakeview is 10x worse in my opinion with all … stroller pushers.”
Are you a product of Immaculate Conception, Sonies?
I think the forum has hit a new low if we’re looking down on people who procreate. Sheesh.
bradford you’re kind of an a$$hole but i like your comments.
back to the property, 600k for a two bedroom? logansquarequeen brought up a good point on the city code thing.
i jog at night after my son goes to sleep and the wife starts talking (just kidding about the wife she is a good woman), and i agree with you on lakeview i hated that area when i was 21.
i will agree with braford, it may be 4000 sq ft but its that same amount of work i have to do if i add in the yard work. the kitchen gets cleaned twice a week as with the bathroom and family room, the rest of the house is just dusting and a quick vacuum
Kind of? No definitely but it has nothing to do with the size of his domicile. 😀
“Are you a product of Immaculate Conception, Sonies?”
Yes.
“I think the forum has hit a new low if we’re looking down on people who procreate. Sheesh.”
I’ll let other society slaves handle the procreation in this country. I’ll have a lot more enjoyment with a lamborghini and all the vacations I can take whenever I want with all the money we’ll be saving.
sonies,
its not all about money, i would trade any money in the would for my son, even when he is screaming for no apparent reason.
Its not totally about the money, I’m just a selfish person and don’t want to sacrifice my life to my children’s needs and want to be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want. So I’m doing the right thing and not having kids, instead of being a dysfunctional dad.
curious, why are you married?
Why is he married? Money, of course!
“curious, why are you married?”
Because I love my wife?
“CH on August 13th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
curious, why are you married?”
Because he doesn’t want to “spend his Saturday afternoons cleaning”…
Costs money to be married–taxes are higher.
Plus, it’s generally not so compatible with “whatever, whenever”.
“Plus, it’s generally not so compatible with “whatever, whenever”.”
Why do you think I said I loved my wife?
TMI TMI
“anon (tfo) on August 13th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Costs money to be married–taxes are higher. ”
wat
Sonies – I read that as “whatever, wheRever”
Party time.
“wat”
I take it that one of you or your wife doesn’t have income, bradford.
If you both have income, the marginal rate splits kick in much sooner. As compared to being two singles. Have you never heard of “the marriage penalty”?
One of the reasons to buy a house (& have kids), to get those extra deductions… its all a giant government conspiracy!
Bradford is so rich he has little income; he lives off his assets and they’re all protected by prenuptial agreements.
The marriage penalty was greatly reduced with the previous administration (although not entirely eliminated it only hits couples in the 200+k range).
But there is a sunset provision with the tax bills of 2001 & 2003 and its doubtful they will be extended. So its coming back for the DINKs.
“In fact America might be a better place if we redefined “home ownership” to only include those with a clear title to their property. If the bank has your deed and can foreclose you if you don’t pay them every month you really don’t own much of anything. You’re just renting from the bank, essentially.”
given that The Man can take your property for non-payment of property taxes, it’s not even as clear as that, IMO.
I like owning not as I expect to make any money, but as I enjoy the freedom to do whatever the hell I want to/in my house, and the security knowing my owner won’t sell it and make me move.
I’ve always thought the idea of a house “making money” is pretty crazy, as the house is just getting older and getting beat up by the elements.
“it only hits couples in the 200+k range”
1. Wrong, at least for 2008. 28% rate hit at $131,450, as compared to $78,850 for individuals. And it’s much worse further up the income ladder.
2. You think bradford bought and reno’d a 4000 sf space on
LOL, Sonies, if doing whatever you want, whenever you want with all that extra cash you are saving up means arguing with folks on this website all day long, I have some bad news for you.
You can do this crap even when you’re poor and have lots of kids.
“anon (tfo) on August 13th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
I take it that one of you or your wife doesn’t have income, bradford.
If you both have income, the marginal rate splits kick in much sooner. As compared to being two singles. Have you never heard of “the marriage penalty”?”
I originally though you were comparing filing jointly vs. filing separately (but still married). My wife and I both work, albeit with disparate incomes (but not *too* disparate).
In any event, per Wiki, the penalty seems to have been more or less negated, of late…
“In 1996, forty-two percent of married taxpayers paid more because they were filing jointly than they would have if they had remained single, according to a 1997 Congressional Budget Office analysis[2]. The average penalty was $1,380. [3] Several pieces of legislation have been passed since the late nineties to do away with these penalties. For example, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 introduced section 1(f)(8) to the Internal Revenue Code, which mitigates the marriage penalty effect in the lower tax brackets. [4] Section 1(f)(8) adjusts the ceiling of the 15-percent tax bracket for joint return filers relative to the ceiling of the 15-percent tax bracket for unmarried spouses. [4] The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 accelerated the benefit to joint return filers by eliminating the marriage penalty for 2003 and 2004 and the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 extended the benefit to 2005-2007. [4] Therefore, the marriage penalty in the lower tax brackets will be eliminated through 2010. [4] Unless reauthorized by Congress, however, the marriage penalty will return in 2011. [4] However, through passing those pieces of legislation, the tax system is now such that couples with disparate incomes will pay less tax than they would have paid as two single taxpayers.”
“anon (tfo) on August 13th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
1. Wrong, at least for 2008. 28% rate hit at $131,450, as compared to $78,850 for individuals. And it’s much worse further up the income ladder.”
Isn’t there a marriage credit of some sort that offets the lower onset of additional taxes?
*shrug* I didn’t get married for tax purposes, so I’m not really all that concerned anyway.
“In any event, per Wiki, the penalty seems to have been more or less negated, of late…”
If a couple both had 2008 taxable income of:
$357,700 (top marginal rate cutoff), they’d pay about 7% more (almost $15k).
$164,550 (33% cutoff for singles), about 9% more (over $7k).
$78,550 (28% cutoff for singles), about 2.5% more (under $1k).
Musr be nice to have enough that a few thousand dollars is negligible.
“Isn’t there a marriage credit of some sort that offets the lower onset of additional taxes?”
Nope. And the personal exemption was only increased to match two singles in ’03. Before that, two working stiffs would have been fools–economincally speaking–to get married.
Your calculations are not correct. Perhaps you are forgetting that the tax rate increases for each tier are only applicable to the segment of income in THAT particular bracket. In other words, you are not actually taxed 28% back to dollar #1, only from $78,850.01 to the next bracket.
For a married couple earning $130k ($80k and $50k), the difference is $34.50 more vs. filing as single people. That is not a typo. It’s thirty four dollars and fifty cents.
So definitely cheaper than a maid. 😉
“Your calculations are not correct.”
No, my numbers are accurate; it’s my post that wasn’t clear. When I said: “If a couple both had 2008 taxable income of”, I meant if EACH of the two had individual (taxable) income equal to those amount.
Yeah, not too many couples where both make ~$500k gross, but there are plenty where both make ~$160+, to get hit with the $7k extra–and that’s the reduced amount from pre-03 and coming back around in ’11.
Source: http://taxes.about.com/od/2008taxes/qt/2008_tax_rates.htm
Math:
$80k single person: ($80,000-$78,850)*.28=$322. $322+$16,056.25=$16,378.25
$50k single person: ($50,000-$32,550)*.25=$4,362.50. $4,481.25+$4,362.50=$8,843.75
Combined tax for both above, FILING AS SINGLES: $25,222
Married Filing Jointly: ($130,000-$65,100)*.25=$16,225.
$16,225.00+$8962.50=$25,187.50
Difference = $25,222 – $25,187.50 = $34.50.
Your numbers are still incorrect. Take this for example:
“$78,550 (28% cutoff for singles), about 2.5% more (under $1k).”
The tax penalty for a married couple in this situation is $787.50. That’s not 2.5% of their combined $157,700 income. In fact, it’s less than half a percent.
Seriously dude, you thought there was an offset credit. You’ve never done your own taxes, have you?
I picked the amounts on purpose. And I don’t care about people who make $130k combined; it might be more “relevant” to teh readers of about.com, but it isn’t my situation and it isn’t as easy to make multiple comparison.
From the 2008 IRS tax tables:
Single: …of the amount over
16,056.25 + 28% 78,850
40,052.25 + 33% 164,550
103,791.75 + 35% 357,700
Married, filing jointly
25,550.00 + 28% 131,450
44,828.00 + 33% 200,300
96,770.00 + 35% 357,700
So, two people who each have $357,700 of taxable income paid a total of $207,583.50 in taxes. If they were married, they would have paid (.35x$357,700 + 96,770) = $221,965; an increase of $14,381.50 MORE for the married couple.
At $164,550, it’s $80,104.50 v. (.33x(2×164,550-200,300)+44828) = $87,332; for a difference of $7,227.50 MORE for the married couple.
“The tax penalty for a married couple in this situation is $787.50. That’s not 2.5% of their combined $157,700 income. In fact, it’s less than half a percent.”
2.5% MORE TAX. Jeebus. Not a higher rate.
“anon (tfo) on August 13th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
2.5% MORE TAX. Jeebus. Not a higher rate.”
Gotcha.
“anon (tfo) on August 13th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Seriously dude, you thought there was an offset credit. You’ve never done your own taxes, have you?”
Not since before I was married, nope.
“anon (tfo) on August 13th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
I picked the amounts on purpose. And I don’t care about people who make $130k combined; it might be more “relevant” to teh readers of about.com”
I would think that the average Cribhater reader would be a lot closer to my example than yours, but obviously, YMMV.
And yeah, I know you picked the amounts on purpose, because they are the cutoffs for single filers, and thus best illustrate your point by maximizing the differential compared to married filers.
This may be the funniest thread I ever read on Cribchatter. Sonies TOTALLY there with you on this. No kids for me either. If I want kids I’ll borrow someone else 18 yr old daughter, thank you! And short of people that live in Appalachia I never met a kid that cost less to carry than what you get back on a tax credit. That would have to be one hell of a deduction.
Oh and my wife is super low maintenance but never met a woman that your tax penalty would be the biggest expense of having her around, including my wife.
Oh and Sonies.. No Lamborghinis, best quote I ever heard about that car was “It’s like having a beautiful woman who is absolutely awful in bed”
🙂
I wonder if a high earning DI couple could just divorce on paper and not tell anyone and set up a trust for their assets instead of separating them. While some may claim this strategy as tax evasion in my view marriage is completely optional and dependant on both parties wanting to be in it, so if they agree to divorce on paper because they want to that seems valid to me. No one need really know except their accountant and the IRS as its their private business.
“I wonder if a high earning DI couple could just divorce on paper and not tell anyone and set up a trust for their assets instead of separating them. ”
I’ve joked about it with my wife. There is no reason one can’t do it.
“Oh and Sonies.. No Lamborghinis, best quote I ever heard about that car was “It’s like having a beautiful woman who is absolutely awful in bed””
Lol yeah, I’d probably just buy a corvette or or M3 or something cheap with a V8 and slap some twin turbos on it or something to make it scary fast instead. Not like i’d ever be able to go that fast with the popo around, but loud and shiny things amuse my wife and I.
“If I want kids I’ll borrow someone else 18 yr old daughter, thank you!”
hahaha! I gotta use that line.
My wife and I used to joke about it too.
Then along came a little one and my wife’s income went from 6figs to nada. Problem solved.
Sort of.
It is DEFINITELY something my colleagues consider–they are all very well versed in the tax ramifications. What amazes me is how often they get married anyway. (And unlike G, these are not situations where one person stops working once a baby arrives. And even if that were to suddenly become the plan, why not wait to get married until a month before the stay-at-homer, starts staying at home?) I guess it just shows that true love is alive and well in America.
I think that for the masses it’s a one-two punch of ‘true love’ and ‘truly innumerate.’ No worries at all, in other words.
“I think that for the masses it’s a one-two punch of ‘true love’ and ‘truly innumerate.’”
Well, also for the masses, it’s about a $40 increase in tax, as Bradford pointed out. It’s only even potentially relevant for
I know, anon, but what I’m saying is that even for people for whom it costs thousands, do it anyway. At least the ones I know. I’m talking even couples where at least one half of the union is a tax lawyer or tax law professor.
BACK TO THE HOUSE…
I went through it yesterday and here are my thoughts on the place, separated by pros/cons:
+ Yard is pretty great although the neighbors are not all that desireable (overgrown on one side and an apt. building on the other that extends far beyond the house)
+ Master bedroom is a nice size with vaulted ceiling
+ Great street – close to Damen, but not right on top of it.
+ As far as the viaduct goes, this one is on the “right” side of the street
– The lower level is about 6’4″ – there are places where it’s only 6′ high – I know this because my partner (who is 6’2″) had to duck every now and then. All sorts of odd drywalled beams on the ceilings.
– There’s a full bath outside of the “dining room” which would be weird to take a shower/have your guests shower in. The bedroom downstairs (small) has only a half bath.
– The kitchen looks to be an 8′ addition to the house (the upstairs does not cover the kitchen). The refrigerator is standing in the middle of nowhere and the other appliances are dated.
– The second bedroom upstairs won’t fit a queen size bed and has an odd L-shaped area that could maybe be an area for a desk?
– The “master bath” is nothing like what you’d expect for the money – the sink is a pedestal/shower with shower curtain. It is “jack and jill” you may call it because it has doors to both the master bath and the other bedroom.
– The balcony off of the front of the master bedroom is about 3′ deep – totally unusable other than to have a smoke.
So there you have my take on the place. I can see it selling to someone that really values living in a SFH but not sure this price will do it.
So I was right, It is a POS in Sucktown for 620k, “agent owned” LOL have fun with your BK specuvestor!
“have fun with your BK specuvestor”
She apparently lived/s there, so notsomuch specuvesting.
But the rest I can’t disagree with, after that review.
“So I was right, It is a POS in Sucktown for 620k, “agent owned” LOL have fun with your BK specuvestor!”
Nah, it’s not a POS – just some downsides.
Sucktown – totally disagree but I’m done fighting you and Groove on this point because you’ll never get it. Just because you don’t fit in somewhere doesn’t mean it sucks…
“agent owned” – not bought as investment.
BK specuvestor – not sure what that means. Burger King?
So, you WERE right! When you ask you whether you were right.
Jon,
ouch, whats with that shot?
“Just because you don’t fit in somewhere doesn’t mean it suck”
hey my wife and her over tattoo’d craziness fits in that hood very good, i used to DJ occasionaly at Red Dog’s (if any one remembers that place).
because i dont “fit in” is not the reason i dislike it.
but i do thank you for posting you opinion on the place, but why you got to take a shot at the Groove?
Why do RE agents feel it is a selling point to put “agent owned” in their listings?
Maybe so that you can avoid commissions if you don’t have a buyers agent?
If not it must be because they are the blessed disciples of real estate and their valuation skills are all encompassing–if they bought the place it must be both a steal and an awesome pad.
I think they legally have to disclose that — not particularly a selling point.
$619k is a steal, what are you talking about? There are so few SFH’s east of Pulaski, much less east of Western, that this house should be selling at a premium. SFH’s in Chicago cost big bux, you know that. If you think $619 is too much money you should either find a new job or make more money, or send your wife back to work. Stop whing and get to work. There are sooooo many people who could afford this as a second home. Chicago has a high cost of living and there’s no way around that. If you want a brick home in Bucktown you better pay for it. I’m surprised this hasn’t been snapped up; maybe it’s priced too low and that’s why it’s not selling. In my opinion all SFH in near-prime neighborhoods (bucktown) should be in the $700’s.
“because i dont “fit in” is not the reason i dislike it.
but i do thank you for posting you opinion on the place, but why you got to take a shot at the Groove?”
Fair enough. You are welcome. The Groove has said Bucktown sucks about 1,000 times on here – he gets his opinion too, but I just question people’s familiarity with the areas they are so adamently opposed to. Would I live in Rogers Park? No, never. Do I know enough about it to categorically say that it sucks (over and over)? No. I still haven’t really heard your theories behind why Bucktown sucks so bad. I live there and like most things about it.
“Why do RE agents feel it is a selling point to put “agent owned” in their listings?”
Because it is the law. They don’t even have to be the listing agent. If anyonee with a RE license has an ownership interest, it must be disclosed everywhere (listing, promo matl’s, ads.)
“Why do RE agents feel it is a selling point to put “agent owned” in their listings?”
They don’t. It must be disclosed if the owner holds a real estate license.
HD-
“There are sooooo many people who could afford this as a second home. Chicago has a high cost of living and there’s no way around that. If you want a brick home in Bucktown you better pay for it. I’m surprised this hasn’t been snapped up; maybe it’s priced too low and that’s why it’s not selling.”
First off, it’s not a brick home – look at the pictures.
Second, you seem pissed about this place – you should go look at it. It’s definitely for a very specific buyer. That’s why it’s priced where it is.
Maybe it’s priced too low and that’s why it’s not selling? What?
This as a second home? That makes no sense for so many reasons I won’t get into them. Find me someone that would consider this as their “second home” and we can address this point…
HD:
A little too much Red Bull this morning? You are reaching on my position and you know it. Of course, I could post the same thing targeted at you about how this home shouldn’t be much more than $100k. I mean, you can buy a 2/1 townhome in bumblestank, il for that right? Chicago shouldn’t be much different, right? Regardless of the market, you should be able to have a nice town home in LP for $100k because that is all you want pay. No one can possibly make more than you and afford to pay more for a home. You deserve to be able to buy a home in whatever part of the city you want whehter you can afford to or not.
Thanks G. I figured they were just boasting. I guess it is to prevent people from thinking it is a FSBO is the owner/agent is doing the showing, etc.
“There are so few SFH’s east of Pulaski, much less east of Western”
Stop acting the fool. You know well that wasn’t my point–I was challenging your assertion that a particular house is an “entry level” home within the market. This place is (much, much) closer to entry level than the Logan one, but has a much superior location–>trading off quality of home for location, so we’ll see what someone (some fool, to you) pays for this one.
“The Groove has said Bucktown sucks about 1,000 times on here”
Jon, my recollection is that teh Groove said he “hates” B’town, while it’s the other haterz who say it sux. Which is different. It’s entirely possible to hate something that one recognizes is awesome (not that teh Groove thinks B’town is awesome).
jon,
i know i am new to the cribchatter, but i usually dont post unless i know about it.
i know about bucktown and lived around it various time in my life. I have seen it going from a shythole to underground to artsy to trendy to hipster to yuppie to what it is now. i have been beat up there, bricked a dude in the head there, slept on the damen stop after a long night of graffiti, did construction on a few renovations there, dj’d at a club there, and am frequently dragged by my wife to shop there.
my reasons for disliking the area are many and range over years and will bore people to death.
I just dont like the whole vibe of bucktown/wicker park
“I mean, you can buy a 2/1 townhome in bumblestank, il for that right? Chicago shouldn’t be much different, right? Regardless of the market, you should be able to have a nice town home in LP for $100k because that is all you want pay.”
No, Russ, you should be able to buy an above-average house on a big (for the city) lot for $850/month, including taxes, insurance and maintenance reserves, so long as it’s in a so-so area. If you put the same house in LP, you could justify–maybe–$1750/month for the same thing. Someone else can figure out what that means as to purchase price.
I see brick: http://tours5.vht.com/API/T50027802/still/viewer_57.jpg
maybe it’s just the facade, who knows. Nevertheless, I’m just saying, real estate isn’t cheap, this home should be selling for top dollar, maybe as a second home to a rich foreigner or something. I don’t know. $700k seems more appropriate. Maybe the low price is scaring people away, if it’s too cheep it’s too cheep for a reason.
I sense a bit of sarcasm from HD
I’ve seen the light and now I’m an RE bull. Especially when it comes to prime and semi-prime areas. $3,000 a month is the bare minimum someone should be paying for even the smallest SFH in Chicago east of Pulaski. If you think that’s too much money then you better get a new job or send your wife to work.
Hell, if you cannot afford a minimum of $3,000 a month for housing, you’re basically a complete loser, society doesn’t need you, go kill yourself right now. If you make so little that you cannot afford $3,000 a month then i don’t even want to walk past you on the street, stay the hell out of my neighborhood, go back to your shanty town with aluminum roofs and your illegal electrical hookups. That’s what you get for less than $3,000 a month.
It’s just the facade that is brick – and only half way up for that matter. The sides and the back of the house are siding. Trust me HD, I went to look at this house because I thought the price was decent. Having looked at it – see my cons list above, I wouldn’t trade the condo that I have now for this just to live in a SFH.
I still don’t understand your point about this being a second home. Maybe I’m dense, but my second home isn’t going to be in Bucktown and it’s surely not going to be this.
“$700k seems more appropriate.” Go look at it. Even the seller doesn’t agree with you.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/angryman/454503531/
Here’s what you call ‘affordable housing’. If you cannot afford $3,000 in Chicago and you want a house, you better pack up your belongings and move to a ‘hood where you can afford. See above.
Some brick is better than no brick.
I’m just saying with all the rich people out there, this could easily be a second home for some rich family or trust fund baby.
“If you cannot afford $3,000 in Chicago and you want a house, you better pack up your belongings and move to a ‘hood where you can afford”
Um, yeah, that’s about right. And the way it’s always been. You *really* think that a SFH in the Lincoln Elem attendance area (or whatever desireable ‘hood) should be $300k, when the median Chicagoan is a renter and the median o/o unit is *not* a SFH and HH income of $100k is howmany people?
Would everyone who has bought be happier to have paid less? Most of them, sure; I know I would. But that’s just not realistic, even with “traditional” loan underwriting standards.
Kind of like, if you want a house on Manhattan, you better be prepared to spend mid-7 figures. Or a house in Belgravia, even more.
I think HD is testy because there hasn’t been capitulation yet, even in non-prime hoods like these. HD I don’t think there is going to be a massive ‘season of capitulation’.
For every dumb breeder trendy yup couple who needs to sell a place like this and run to the burbs once a kiddo falls out, there is a high replacement rate. You see the average female has a strong nesting instinct, even pre-kids, and ownership is still seen as a positive thing by these financial illiterates. Either the dude doesn’t agree and just gives up and goes along with anything she says because he doesn’t want to start trouble, or he drinks the RE kool aid too.
The thing is these whitbreads have a high replacement rate, even in this downturn. During the boom the replacement rate was over 1, maybe 1.5 which drove prices way way up. These days with all these whitbreads doing the Helen Keller towards the RE market the replacement rate is now below 1, but its still high in trendy hoods, maybe .8. So they take some small financial lumps and move on for the most part, with the occasional foreclosure.
No massive season of capitulation but rather downward spiral by a thousand cuts. And this property isn’t redonkulous like that one in Logan Square.
They’ll probably wind up bringing 40-60k to close and it closes at 525-545k or else its CPS for their likely very average offspring. Fast forward three or four years and its the next lemming couple doing the same routine.
“I think HD is testy because there hasn’t been capitulation yet”
If it hasn’t happened yet, there won’t be… home prices take a long time to drop because they are illiquid, typically leveraged, but also serve a purpose. (Can’t live in a stock certificate or CD)
It might be death by a thousand cuts, but you can bet your ass the guberment isnt going to allow that to happen because they are the morons responsible for this mess in the first place.
If our economy ever recovers the frickin dollar won’t be worth a damn and people that are buying right now may appear to be very bright as to purchase a hard asset with leverage at a low rate as an inflation hedge while their dollars are still worth something.
You think this last bubble was bad? Oh man, just wait for the next one, its only going to be worse! (Thanks guvment!)
Perhaps right but watch the government do something idiotic like increase the taxpayer credit to a large amount in an attempt to stabilize prices. Free handouts renters would take in order to be moved into homes.
Of course then the transaction amount doesn’t mean a damn thing as the market is distorted but thats Uncle Sam for ya.
“Hell, if you cannot afford a minimum of $3,000 a month for housing, you’re basically a complete loser, society doesn’t need you, go kill yourself right now”
now thats some funny stuff right there!!!!!
did you know i hate bucktown? shhh keep it a secret
“Jon, my recollection is that teh Groove said he “hates” B’town, while it’s the other haterz who say it sux. Which is different. It’s entirely possible to hate something that one recognizes is awesome (not that teh Groove thinks B’town is awesome).”
anon,
good looking out bro slice 🙂
I spend $850 a month on housing, and instead of being revered for my financial prowess and good credit, I should be vilified and called a loser. I deserve it.
You can’t be a winner in our society until you spend a lot of money on housing. In our eyes, it’s even better to spend a lot of money on housing during the largest property bubble the world has ever seen. Especially as it deflates, in our society you have to jump in because something is a ‘deal’. Let’s face it, real estate is expensive, it’s not like they’re building any more of it. The more you pay per month for housing, the better a person you are.
This house is listed on Trulia as being 1,544 square feet. The footprint of the house (especially the 2nd floor) is small, but that doesn’t seem right to me unless you don’t count the basement. Anyone know where Trulia would get this number from?
http://www.trulia.com/property/1043035461-2032-W-Churchill-St-Chicago-IL-60647
Bob;
“is these whitbreads.. ownership is still seen as a positive thing by these financial illiterates”
HD;
“I spend $850 a month on housing”
it not about what you spend on “housing” its about making that housing a HOME, for some its not being financial illiterate, its about making your apartment/condo/sfh a home no matter what you pay for it.
Trulia lists this place as 1,544 square feet. Anyone know where they get their numbers from? That seems too small especially if you were to count the basement.
Sonies,
We agree on the caustion of this, but I don’t think government intervention can stop the housing slide. Only the market can do that. Look how much has been spent so far and how limited its effects can be.
As the housing stock is trillions of dollars, I don’t think government intervention can do much more than slow the market correction from happening. Eventually the market will bottom, I have no idea when that is but looks like the first step towards it (new supply going to near zero) is already underway and has been for the past two years.
It will be death by a thousand cuts more than likely to hit bottom. Somebody claiming to be rich threw out 2014 as the trough for housing: I think this makes sense for the sand states that have a ton of toxic crap loans out there and they should all recast by then. Illinois doesn’t, meaning employment is the likely driver. Tough for anyone to predict when that turns. Most that claim are pulling numbers out of their arse.
“I spend $850 a month on housing, and instead of being revered for my financial prowess and good credit”
Seriously? You want to be REVERED for being cheap? And having a high FICO score? That’s as silly as having reverence for spendthrifts and bankrupts.
I could afford a place that costs $100 a month in shorewood… REVERE ME!
“Trulia lists this place as 1,544 square feet. Anyone know where they get their numbers from?”
Without inquiry, I’d bet it’s the assessor’s number. Which doesn’t count the basement, and may not count the kitchen addition.
See, once again, i’m pointing out your biases. To you its more important to spend a lot of money on expensive housing (that is unnecessary at this point in my life) rahther than to think WOW he spends only $850 and it’s a good value. Think of all the cash he is saving for when he buys a house after the bubble has deflated. Instead, everyone thinks: What a loser, he must not make any money, because if he did, he would be living in a better home. Its such a fallacy and the bias is ridiculous.
“Seriously? You want to be REVERED for being cheap?”
As someone who has typically been called “cheap” (as I life a modest lifestyle and aim to repay debt) I think this latest ‘thrift’ thing is just a fad forced on the public by circumstances.
The public is still just as stupid as the concept and comprehension of money management as they were before. Its just their credit has finally been cut and so many are in the same boat its now become the in/trendy thing to do.
Give most of the masses a new credit card with a limit and they’ll be back to their old ways. Americans really are stupid when it comes to money management vs. their asian peers. They’re just not smart, on the whole.
HD, no one is vilifying you. Your $850/month is working for you obviously. Nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with being a renter. If that is what you and your family has decided you want to spend, then that is your business.
My point, which you have chosen to blow way out of context, is that some neighborhoods are just expensive… period. This isn’t to say that there aren’t homes that are over priced in these areas, but regardless of how much the market corrects, the average joe will still be priced out of these areas. This isn’t about being bias, arrogant, or a real estate shill. Nor is it about putting down folks who don’t make $150k+. It is just a fact.
I was pointing out that I think you and others may be a little ambitious in what you want or think prices ought to be in certain areas. The demand to live in these areas is high and there are enough people willing to pay the price of entry. If you want to live in those areas and get a certain type of house, you have to decide if that price of entry is reasonable for you. For some people, it may not be and they will choose to either compromise on the property they buy or they will move to a cheaper part of town. People make these choices each and every day.
russ,
“is that some neighborhoods are just expensive”
yeah but some hoods are unnecessarily expensive like, logan square.
HD: “See, once again, i’m pointing out your biases.”
Who you talking to?
“To you its more important to spend a lot of money on expensive housing … rahther than to think WOW he spends only $850 and it’s a good value.”
False dichotomy, dude. OF COURSE what I do is more important to me than what I think of you and what you do. You draft your pleadings this way (not that you spend time editing your posts here, but still)?
Bob: “[On thrift]”
I don’t disagree with any of that, but you also pretty affirmatively don’t give a flying f’ what other people thing about your lifestyle choices. Which is pretty different from (even faux) disappointment in not being revered for being thrifty.
Groove, why do you say Logan Square is unnecessarily expensive? Personally, I think LP is expensive and over rated, but that doesn’t make it so for the folks that choose to live there.
russ, except for the historic part of logan square, its not that great of a hood, you still are car or buss dependent, yes there have been new trendy food places popping up here and there (love that BBQ place by the mega mall) but that doenst justify the prices.
cause your still car or bus dependent and its still a “hood”, then why wouldnt a person go over to portage park, belmont-craign, jeff park has a train and bus hub, galewood, kelvin park?
my grandparents grew up in logan square, my parents grew up there, its not even back to the level of there day but since 1999 prices have shot up and strangly stayed up after the bubble for a hood that still ways away from turning the corner.
HD,
You shouldn’t care what people think about your values, Fck them.
Do what you want, but dont assume that everyone has the same point of view.
Also I would reccomend spending less time on meaningless chatter here and look for ways of investing all the money you are saving.
btw, strangely i dont think LP is over priced and hate to say this but sometimes agree with what steve hietman say about LP
I agree; today for reasons I cannot get into I’ve posted a lot but in general I don’t post that much during my workday. Today is the exception not the rule.
“Also I would reccomend spending less time on meaningless chatter
here and look for ways of investing all the money you are saving.”
Speaking of Steve Heitman, where has he been. Maybe he has given up realestate sales for auto sales; and has become a cash for clunkers specialist.
groove, I don’t necessarily disagree although the demand to live in certain areas does change over time. Areas that at one point had nothing going for it can all of a sudden change for a variety of reasons.
I saw this in Atlanta. An area that for the most part was really the “hood”… as in frequently shouted out on rap albums all of a sudden became trendy. Basically the old housing stock was appealing (nice little bungalows, small yards, and really close to down town) so all the gay white men started moving in. A few cleaned up yards and the local parks. Ten years later, houses cost about 2.5x what they cost for the pioneers of the neighborhood. There are still a few rough patches, but no one expects prices to fall back dramatically.
“Also I would reccomend spending less time on meaningless chatter
here and look for ways of investing all the money you are saving.”
dude please spend MORE time on meaningless chatter here, i need to be entertained at work 🙂
Russ,
“so all the gay white men started moving in. A few cleaned up yards and the local parks”
sounds like logan square historic district 🙂
flippers speculating on the next big hood change and the easy lending drove up demand for housing so prices went up in places like logan square part of humbolt and ukie village but they all are still seeing high prices for hoods that a still steps away from the “turn”
even my house at one time was valued at 500k, i never believed it was worth that 🙂 but should have sold then 🙁
Groove,
To some my comments were meaningless……..
” instead of being revered for my financial prowess and good credit”
Unfortunately, people like you and me got majorly fd by all of this. I actually wish I would have bought a $1mm home in the bubble, because at least I would have a seat at the table. There is no way servicers are going to be able to handle all these problem loans and eventually the servicers/banks are just going to forgive principal and restructure loans rather than take properties back. So the over-leveraged get rewarded and people like us get punished.
I recently purchased a home and the level of scrutiny I went through was beyond belief. The lender was literally looking for reasons not to fund the loan up to an hour before the transaction actually closed. Keep in mind, I was the sucker that rented for years, built an 800 credit score and saved enough cash to put more than 50% down (I only put 25% down). Had I truly been smart, I would have bought a $1mm house with no money down in 2007 and set up a shelter for cash/investments.
valasko, more chatter=less investing=entertaining Groove
no comments are meaningless, only commments not said are meaning less.
(feel free to put that on a fortune cookie, get rich, then buy that house in china town)
Groove has it right on Logan Sq. and Lincoln Park. I see the structural advantages of Lincoln Park and it’s easy to accept that you need a lot of dough to get in there.
It’s less easy to accept that giant stacks of cash are necessary to get into Logan, or Albany Park, or Rogers Park, or further out.
Russ makes the point that “some neighborhoods are expensive” and that’s obviously correct. You can argue about which ones should be: different strokes, etc. But *all* of them–all the adequate, working/middle-class neighborhoods–can’t be prohibitive.
Across the outer neighborhoods you see SFHs that transacted for the mid-100s in the 90s asking well into the three bills today. It is a serious problem for we middle-class early-30s folk. Yeah, that’s life, nobody said it would be easy; but I don’t think our ambition for a little house on a safe block is unreasonable.
Today’s 100k homes in the outer hoods sell in an instant and like I was saying in oip anything in the 300’s goes under K in a few weeks. 350k might be the median selling price but the average listing price is nearly double that, and these same homes were in the high 100’s and low 200’s in the 1990’s. Pricing disconnects is still a major problem and hence, the low low volume, off 60% and 70% or more since 2005. I don’t think today’s middle class earns significantly more today than they did in the 90’s to justify those prices.
“Across the outer neighborhoods you see SFHs that transacted for the mid-100s in the 90s asking well into the three bills today. It is a serious problem for we middle-class early-30s folk.”
“Across the outer neighborhoods you see SFHs that transacted for the mid-100s in the 90s asking well into the three bills today.”
Yes. This is a problem. Yes, there *need* to be parts of the city where a post-proby cop* can “afford” the monthly nut on a typical SFH (ignoring the DP issue). $300k to buy a bungalow in a part of the city few non-locals visit is too much. $600k for a livable two-flat outside a prime hood is too much.
*$55,723 salary.
“I saw this in Atlanta. An area that for the most part was really the “hood”… as in frequently shouted out on rap albums all of a sudden became trendy”
cabbage town?
“Unfortunately, people like you and me got majorly fd by all of this.”
This is exactly why the bad bankers should be punished. Not every bank was making crazy loans. Actually most weren’t. Just because Shittygroup and Bank of Armageddon have big lobbyists they got the big boys bailed out. They should have crashed and burned, and the surviving banks should’ve been patted on the pack in terms of increased market share and revenues from making wise business moves.
When our government jumps in and rewards irresponsible behavior it only encourages more of it in the future. Wait for that.
ShittyGroup should change their slogan from: “the bank that never sleeps” to “the bank that needs to be put to sleep”.
And HD is exactly right that these prices aren’t coming down in these “non-prime hoods”. The problem is the owners got fat and happy from seeing their assessed values rise and paying increased taxes, and neither them nor the local government want to see lower values.
So we’ll be at a standstill and those of us unwilling to fund fat people’s retirement who merely got lucky for living there will have to buy foreclosures or estate sales.
Don’t worry HD there will be plenty of both: these fat people don’t live forever and the banks can’t hold out forever either. Check out my latest real home of genius in Chicago–MLS 07298827.
“Check out my latest real home of genius in Chicago–MLS 07298827.”
Dude, that actually looks livable and has a normal lot. And it’s only $449. If that’s most genius home Chicago has to offer right now, the bubble really wasn’t that big here.
Frankly, I think those unfinished tenant in common interests … I mean, condos … on Ashland from last week are much, much more genius than that.
CH:
Cabbagetown, Kirkwood, Edgewood, Castleberry Hill, Old Fourth Ward… even Grant Park and Inman Park weren’t so nice back in the day. Heck, I remember Piedmont Park was overrun with nothing but prostitutes. Midtown was not all that nice.
My favorite is Castleberry Hill. You could have bought a 3000 square foot multi-level loft there in the early 90s for like $100k.
Bob, what makes it a house of genius is that it sold during the boom for some crazy amount and now it’s listed as a short sale or foreclosure. This house has had the same owner since 1997 and now he’s just trying to sell it and it’s extremely overpriced. I’ll show you a house of genius.
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/4022-N-Kilbourn-Ave-60641/home/13480716
13-15-318-064-0000
Failed failed rehab/flip. No fraud:
Jan 10, 2007 Sold $604,000
Jun 01, 2009 Sold $335,000
(I told you everything in the $300’s in my ‘hood sells quickly)
Well with yours:
1) 1/2 mile from two Metra stops
2) 1/2 mile from highway
3) 1/2 mile from El stop
4) North Side
5) Property doesn’t look like shit/looks finished from one exterior pic
My two flat is clearly more genius than your property.
Dropped to $599,900 — getting closer to the 2007 price.
The seller is going to take a bath on this Bucktown House of genius. Looks like they’re trying to cover closing costs/commissions at this price.
Like I said earlier, it’s a nice house but not very big and only suited to a very particular buyer (nobody over 6’1″ because of the lower level…)
Going through it, the owner/realtor had a lot of ideas as to “what could be done” to make it a better, livable space. Maybe this is an example of you have to DO IT, not just give your buyer that’s about to shell out a bunch of cash ideas as to what could be done.