Live in a Victorian Storefront: 2075 N. Oakley in Bucktown
This large 3-bedroom duplex down at 2075 N. Oakley in Bucktown is located in the part of a Victorian building which used to be the first floor storefront.
It still appears to have the vintage tin ceiling (or something that looks like a vintage tin ceiling) on the main floor.
All three bedrooms are on the main floor. A large family room is located in the duplex down.
At 2600 square feet, the unit has more space than many single family homes in the neighborhood.
It also has attached parking and a deck off the dining room. The listing says the yard is professionally landscaped.
Jennifer Mills at Koenig & Strey has the listing. See the pictures here.
You can also see it in person at the open house on Sunday, 1/24 between 1- 3pm.
Unit #1: 3 bedrooms, 3 baths, 2600 square feet, duplex down, 1 car parking
- Sold in April 1999 for $320,000
- Sold in January 2002 for $462,500
- Sold in July 2006 for $731,500
- Currently listed for $824,900
- Assessments of $259 a month (includes cable)
- Taxes of $6100
- Central Air
- Washer/Dryer in the unit
$463k in 2002 and $825k now? If this were gum it’d be “Double Bubble”
That being said, it’s a nice looking place with a great outdoor space.
you can buy near-brand new construction 3500-4000 sq ft homes for $875k just a few blocks south
Living in a storefront doesn’t appeal to me at all, all I can think of when I see that is a brick and broken glass in my living room. And every bedroom in this place but 1 is in the basement isn’t it?
$259 a month for assessments? for what?
Benefits are the yard & the general wideness of the place, but 825k in Bucktown for a duplex down = lol
Can’t you get like a 3000 sqft house there for that much?
“If this were gum it’d be “Double Bubble””
barry my new friend that is some darn funny stuff there. i almost forgive you for living in naperville.
now why does this place deserve this crazy appreciation? has there been substantial work done since 2006? am i missing something?
They are high if they think they are getting anything neat this price.
Wow. This price is completely out of line. For $825K you get to live in a (1) fish bowl with immediate sidewalk frontage and (2) an entirely below-grade windowless basement (that window well doesn’t count!). As someone that loves this area (I’ve lived 3 blocks from here for about 8 years), I don’t get it. Unless the side yard is selling for $400K and I didn’t get the memo, good luck!
Just awful. Why in the world would anyone enjoy living like this? Let alone spend over 800K for the privilege?
The owners of this unit are your traditional ‘power couple’ husband and wife team working at the same mid-sized chicago law firm. Now being ‘partner’ doesn’t mean as much as it used to, maybe they’re just income partner which puts them at about $150ish x 2 give or take (this is a mid-sized firm with lots of insurance IIRC).
How many power couples are there in the city like this? They’re going to take a loss but they have a little bit of equity in the property. they owe $667k but they paid $731k.
Congratulations Crib Chatter – this storefront conversion possibly the most ridiculously priced home yet! Kudos for the homeowners furnishings and style, but this place seems 100% overpriced. No matter if the kitchen and baths are “new” or “updated” or “owned by posh people”.
Basements, no matter how nicely finished and furnished are not legally habitable space and shouldn’t be in SF calculations; takes gumption to count windowless space as legitimate floor area. Perhaps someone should call the Building Dept to confirm this unit meets all code-required exit requirements for basement space.
Must be uncomfortable to sit near windows and have people walking by, tapping on and peeping in your well-lit windows, just a broken glass away from you.
“they’re just income partner which puts them at about $150ish x 2 give or take (this is a mid-sized firm with lots of insurance IIRC).”
Really? That’s all id non-equity Ps make? jeebus.
“Basements, no matter how nicely finished and furnished are not legally habitable space”
Huh? Two egress points, ignoring the dubious utility of the three transom-sized windows. Makes it habitable space in accordance with applicable code, no?
Now, calling the room in the basement a bedroom–dubious, at best.
You know my name is not above the line on the letterhead but my understanding is that income partners (which this couple after being with the firm for less than 10 years is the most likely scenario but I can’t say with confidence) is just really a glorified senior associate, which at a mid-sized firm (this is not a biglaw or even regional firm) that does plenty of insurance (IIRC) is probably $150k or so. Fancy title, same office, still a salaried employee, can be fired at anytime.
Biggest firms start junior associates at 160k. Only 600 or 700 per year and many don’t make it more than a couple of years. As you can see there is a huge gap between what the top lawyers make and what everyone else makes as which is the case in many professions.
Equity partners depending how much rain they make are probably pulling down in the mid-200’s at the very bottom all the up to whatever level of rainmaking that particular partner has.
Equity partner is still what everyone wants to be.
Enough of that, i’m not partner so i’m going home.
“anon (tfo) on January 22nd, 2010 at 5:21 pm
“they’re just income partner which puts them at about $150ish x 2 give or take (this is a mid-sized firm with lots of insurance IIRC).”
Really? That’s all id non-equity Ps make? jeebus.”
Maybe they make $200k a piece, it’s hard to say, but that’s pretty generally where a non-equity partner is going to top out at a mid-sized firm.
“The owners of this unit are your traditional ‘power couple’ husband and wife team working at the same mid-sized chicago law firm.”
They should be forced to read Guy Kiyosaki’s (sp?) Rich Dad, Poor Dad. They have ‘income rich but asset poor’ written all over them. And nobody is going to buy this for anywhere even close to ask only because of the el.
650k is my guess.
Why they ever thought this was a good idea at 730k is beyond me. I take no joy their plight, but, man, this place is overpriced at at least 150k, if not 200k. Any time a real estate agent starts prattling on about below-grade sq ft-age, I just give’em the hand.
Basement space is not counted in SF, unless it fits legal definition of “english basement” w/windows at waist-height that can be used for emergency exiting. There are specific code requirements defining configuration and dimensions. Simply because someone choses to “finish” the basement doesn’t turn that space into “habitable” space. The tax assessment on this unit doesn’t reflect a “habitable basement”, which is correct.
Bedrooms in a code-conforming 50s/60s split-level house will fit code definition. “Victorian” commercial storefront’s below-grade basement, intended for furnaces and cold storage, are not, no matter how nice the later finishes and/or assertions of listing agent/seller. A basement door or staircase alone don’t convert space into code-compliant “habitable” condition. Nor does a transom window.
Looking on the patio photo on the interactive floorplan, is the building on a standard lot?
Max, the yard is on the side of the building so it’s either a double lot or a lot and a half. I wonder whether that unit has exclusive rights to it?
Those thin poles in the middle of the basement wouldn’t be structural, right? What are they for? To support the ductwork?
The listing description mentions a “Giant Private Yard W/koi Pond!”
danny on January 23rd, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Those thin poles in the middle of the basement wouldn’t be structural, right? What are they for? To support the ductwork?
Those poles are holding up a beam that runs the length of the bldg down the center. You find them in any older two/three flat and they are absolutely structural.
Oy vey! It looks like any little brat playing war in the basement could knock out one of those poles with a baseball bat.
dahliachi: “Those poles are holding up a beam that runs the length of the bldg down the center. You find them in any older two/three flat and they are absolutely structural.”
The side yard is the only think to like about this property. But for $550k-ish I bet it’d sell.
I walked the dogs past this place again to see whether everyone here is off on it being overpriced. Good news! You are all correct — this is an insane price for this place. Here are a few more things I observed about the property besides what has already been noted above.
(1) It does look like a double lot with the building on the north lot and the south lot is the yard. Only part of the south lot is with this unit. There’s a lovely wood fence that separates the yard in the pictures from more yard that presumably belongs to the other unit owners. So as far as “Giant Private Yard W/koi Pond!” — it’s not that big and there’s nothing private about it! It is directly off the sidewalk, bordered by the other units’ yard, and the other units overlook it. I didn’t notice a koi pond but then again the yard looks nothing like the lush picture in the listing (seasonal).
(2) The only window that I could see for the lower level (aka basement) is underneath the little deck leading out to the yard. The yard is about 3 feet below the level of the sidewalk, but that window is tiny and covered by the deck.
(3) The north side of the building has two entrances to 2 (or 3 – can’t tell) other units. So my guess is that more of the 2600 square feet is in the basement.
This realtor has lost control of her client because nothing supports this price. Aside from the big things like being a 50+% basement unit, a basement bedroom, no privacy on the main level, we haven’t even scratched the surface with the little things that we often notice. Small example: shouldn’t you be able to face the microwave when using it? Here you can do that if you sit on the kitchen counter. I have no doubt we will watch this one go down, down, down, down…
(Peg – no offense, but saying that reducing the price by a third really isn’t that bold. That said, I’ll take one of the 3/3 duplex ups with roofs in the area for $599 any day over this, so you may have a point with $550.)
If you look at the 2002 price, 550k is not bold at all…
To show you guys how out of touch and bubbly Chicago RE values are relative to incomes, I am going to post the census tract data from the school tierfinder. Here is this one:
Census Tract 221600 is Tier 3
Median Family Income: $59,302.88
Single-parent households: 30.61%
Owner-occupied homes: 34.74%
Speaks language other than English: 42.94%
Educational attainment percentile: 87.00%
More likely the kid will run right into one……
danny on January 23rd, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Oy vey! It looks like any little brat playing war in the basement could knock out one of those poles with a baseball bat.
“There are specific code requirements defining configuration and dimensions. Simply because someone choses to “finish” the basement doesn’t turn that space into “habitable” space.”
Please point me to the Chicago building code requirements that go beyond two means of egress. Cuz that’s all I can find. Note I agree that calling any part of that basement a “bedroom” is non-compliant.
Also, note that the assessor’s definition excludes *all* “basement” area unless it’s a legal apartment–which is also a different standard.
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicagobuilding/buildingcodeandrelatedexcerptsofthemunic?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicagobuilding_il
Here’s the code ya
“Here’s the code”
Brilliant. Where’d you think I found the 2 egress thing to make the statement that I can’t find anything else. That’s only slightly more helpful than suggesting: http://www.google.com
Anon(tfo): let someone else who doesn’t have the link search the code, I haven’t got time today.
“Anon(tfo): let someone else who doesn’t have the link search the code, I haven’t got time today.”
I certainly wasn’t asking you to do so. If it is sooo evidently true, someone in the biz should be able to point it out easily. I dug around some and cou;dn’t find anything.
Yall are awfully kind to this property. There’s been plenty sales of nice SFHs in the general area at less than what they’re asking here and this place, while “cool”, has its problems (duplex down, 1 car parking, interesting microwave placement in kitchen, kitchen design that doesn’t fit aesthetically, those irritating poles in the basement, bathroom pictures dont show any storage space, no mention of walk in closet, etc…). 500k would be a good starting point I think.
Anon(tfo) and Homedelete:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=chicago+building+code
“Yall are awfully kind to this property.”
I don’t think there’s been a nice thing said about it other than the yard is a plus… Nobody was accusing this of being a “cool” place. I was tempted to go to the open house yesterday but 2.5 blocks seemed like too far to walk to laugh at a realtor.
Here is the code requirements. There is a requirement for windows, but it only looks like it is for 1-2 family dwellings. From what I have seen/researched, Chicago has not adopted the requirement for window egress for bedroom from International Residential Code. (It looks like Chicago only uses “13-160-050 Minimum number of exits” to determine egress.
13-64-070 Requirements for habitable basement rooms.
A basement may be used for habitable rooms or a dwelling unit, regardless of the depth of the floor below grade, if the floors and walls are impervious to leakage of underground and surface water and are protected from dampness, and if the required minimum window area is located entirely above the finished elevation of the grade adjoining the basement wall in which the windows are located.
13-64-030 Basement room areas – Outside air openings.
Basements in single and two-family dwellings shall be provided with windows or other openable devices providing openings to the outside air of not less than two percent of the floor area.
“I don’t think there’s been a nice thing said about it other than the yard is a plus…”
I was only referring to the prices people put on this. Even our most hateful haters are putting this at up to 650k. Way too generous imo.
Here is the natural light requirement for, I believe, all rooms regardless of dwelling type
13-172-070 Natural light
“Anon(tfo) and Homedelete:”
Again, completely unhelpful. Show me WHERE in the CODE it provides that you have to have “windows at waist-height that can be used for emergency exiting.” The requirement I find is:
“13-64-070 Requirements for habitable basement rooms.
A basement may be used for habitable rooms or a dwelling unit, regardless of the depth of the floor below grade, if the floors and walls are impervious to leakage of underground and surface water and are protected from dampness, and if the required *minimum window area* is located entirely above the finished elevation of the grade adjoining the basement wall in which the windows are located.” [emph added];
“minimum window area” is a bad cross-ref, the actual definition is “minimum glazing area”, which is:
“13-172-070 Natural light.
…
(b)Minimum glazing area. Every room or space intended for human occupancy shall have an exterior glazing area of not less than 8 percent of the floor area. Natural light shall be provided by glazing areas that open onto courts, yards or public ways which comply with the requirements of Section 13-172-130, or by other approved means.”
I’m not asserting that THIS basement is “habitable” space, but was querying where the believe that “habitable space” requires “windows at waist-height that can be used for emergency exiting” comes from, b/c I can’t find it.
The IRC (International Residential Code) specifies the minimum width for an egress windows at 24 in., the minimum height is 20 in., and the net clear opening requirement is 5.7 sq. ft. (5.0 sq. ft. for ground-floor windows. To comply with the code, an egress windows must be set with a maximum sill height of 44 in.
BUT, from what I have found (although not exhaustive), Chicago has not adopted this requirement
anon: Looking back through the comments, Architect was the one who posted the waist requirement. Perhaps that’s a rule of thumb in the suburbs or he is pulling from just the IRC, rather than Chicago code as GB is showing?
“an egress windows must be set with a maximum sill height of 44 in.”
That’s an awfully tall waist. I guess Architect is either 6’8″+, or wears his pants unlike any architect I’ve ever met or seen.
Waist height–to me–is maximum 36″. And I’m 6’+.
Also, although it is not practical on most city lots, that would allow for a window well excavation to provide the (not-requried in Chicago) required window–something that *could* be done for this particular basement, at v. large (indeed, completely unreasonable) expense and sacrificing a fair amount of yard-space and unit security.
“anon: Looking back through the comments, Architect was the one who posted the waist requirement. Perhaps that’s a rule of thumb in the suburbs or he is pulling from just the IRC, rather than Chicago code as GB is showing?”
Yeah, I know. And GB (likely) answered from whence it came. I just was confused and curious where the requirement came from, as it did not appear to be anywhere in the Chicago Bldg Code.
Anon: no worries. I’ve also spent time diving through codes to no avail in the past when someone raises their spectre.
Chicago Building Code has both “natural lighting” and “natural ventilation” requirements for living, dining, and sleeping rooms. Condominiums must comply with requirement. In practice, this means there are operable window requirements for living, dining and sleeping rooms, including “multi-purpose” rooms that are used for that purpose, such as “family rooms” and “guest rooms”. This Bucktown unit doesn’t meet those code requirements, so that non-compliant square footage shouldn’t be counted in the unit’s total area in the listing sheet.
If owner decides to finish basement and use it as family room/guest room, it’s still in violation of Building Code. Chicago’s Building Dept doesn’t specifically inspect for such violations, but contractor didn’t pull a permit to convert this storefront’s basement into a family room and extra bedroom. Future buyer can use space however desired, but there is an inherent life-safety risk by violating a prudent code requirement. This is a probable 1300 SF overpriced unit, not 2600 SF unit.
From the realtor’s ad:
“This Gorgeous Lofty Condo Is Flooded W/light”
Duuuuuuuh. Not when you have to draw the shades 24/7 for privacy.
“Not when you have to draw the shades 24/7 for privacy.”
If you live (1) in Chicago and (2) in a building w/o an elevator, how does one acquire all of this privacy to keep one’s blinds/shades/curtains open?
There might be an actual door with an areaway with stairs out of the basement, hence no egress windows.
“There might be an actual door with an areaway with stairs out of the basement, hence no egress windows.”
The listing has a picture floorplan. It shows a door to the common stair area. I presume that there is access to stairs leading to the side entrance.
Yeah, that might count. Didn’t notice the FP earlier. Still a dungeon, since storefronts typically have lower floors for fewer stairs up from street/sidewalk. Now if it had a glazed sidewalk vault, THAT would be cool.
This would be a great spot for a liquor store.
I was thinking yoga studio or ballet school.
BREAKING NEWS!
Lowered from $824,900 to $822,500!
This is going to help. I knew that it was priced $2,400 too high. What a shitshow this is.
Lowered another $1,600!!! Someone is gonna get a steal on this joke of a place.
“Lowered another $1,600!!!”
1600 every 9 days? This place won’t be reasonable until sometime in 2015.
I walked past this place yesterday and there are two for sale signs. You can now get the duplex up in this building for $489K – I would take this over the duplex down every day of the week (and save myself $300K!)
Jon’s favorite place is down to $699K.
“I walked past this place yesterday and there are two for sale signs.”
Does anyone else hate sale signs? Walk through the best neighborhoods in NYC: you won’t see any sale signs. To me, that says: “places are rarely available in this neighborhood, and you, prospective buyer, would be lucky to score a place here.”
Has anyone on here purchased a place after happening into a place because they saw a sale sign out front? When one goes up – stays up, for months (if not years, these days) – how does that reflect on a particular building or street?
One of the best rules to have in an associations rules and regs: no sale signs.
699k or not this owner is still stupid as evidenced by their still wildly high pricing expectations. They just can’t give it away, eh?
Unit 3R is a 2/3 in the same building listed for 449k.
“Jon’s favorite place is down to $699K.”
That is, of course, where they should have started.
“That is, of course, where they should have started.”
Yes perhaps where. But you should condition that statement with a when. And that would be in 2005.
“That is, of course, where they should have started.”
Yes, there were plenty of SFH in Btown around the prior list and some at current list.
Just poking around and saw the sale price for this, which made me go hmmm just a bit. Not right for my family, but is this a deal, especially if you can do something about taxes? Short sale, I assume?
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1915-N-Damen-Ave-60647/unit-E/home/18928621
“Just poking around and saw the sale price for this, which made me go hmmm just a bit. Not right for my family, but is this a deal, especially if you can do something about taxes? Short sale, I assume?”
Grantee was the owner, and their 1st mortgage was $899.9, so I’d go with short sale. 2d mortgage was $112.5, both with WFB. So, 10% down.
FC was filed by HSBC prior to the mortgage assignment from WFB to HSBC being recorded–so this is a perfect example of the current “crisis”, and the easiest resolution for the banks–more short sales getting approved.
Taxes–the AV went down 16% from 08 to 09, so the taxes shouldn’t be going up for this year.
“Taxes–the AV went down 16% from 08 to 09, so the taxes shouldn’t be going up for this year.”
Is this type of situation a slam dunk appeal? The implied “market value” if I’m understanding stuff correctly is $949K in 2009 and I have a sale of $672.5K. Can I just show someone the sale price and say that you have to adjust the AV to reflect that? Or are not enough people getting paid if things are that easy?
“Is this type of situation a slam dunk appeal? The implied “market value” if I’m understanding stuff correctly is $949K in 2009 and I have a sale of $672.5K. ”
There’s an essentially identical unit that would also need to be re-assessed down, too, and then the smaller units would require reductions. Also, not an arms-length sale. In other words–probably not a slamdunk, but G might correct that impression.
The sale price alone is not enough. You will need a decent appraisal, too.
AV reductions do not result in levy reductions unless they occur at the state property tax appeal board. Any assessor or board of review reductions are prior to the tax rate calculation, therefore, they just spread your reduction around.
“There’s an essentially identical unit that would also need to be re-assessed down, too,”
Does the order of appeals matter? Would it be easier for that other unit to point to this sale, get the adjustment, and then for this unit to point to the other unit and its own prior sale price?
“not an arms-length sale”
Why not? No one forced the bank to agree. I mean, I think I know the argument for why not, but is it clear the assessor’s office views it that way?
“Why not? No one forced the bank to agree. I mean, I think I know the argument for why not, but is it clear the assessor’s office views it that way?”
I short hand arms-length, non-distressed into just arms-length which is less than clear.
I am *sure* that it is not “clear” that the assessor’s office views it that way, but I am certain that, were I in charge, it would be so viewed. Distressed sales of any fashion shouldn’t be held up as the “market price” for tax purposes–even if ALL sales in the relevant market are distressed.
This one followed an actual foreclosure filing, so there is no way to claim that it was not a sale completed as a substitute for a bank fc followed by REO sale.
“Distressed sales of any fashion shouldn’t be held up as the “market price” for tax purposes–even if ALL sales in the relevant market are distressed.”
What’s the principle for what should be used as the “market price” or whatever price for tax purposes? Suppose all sales are distressed (or less extreme, enough sales are distressed that they end up setting prices on the margin), then that’s the market price. I suppose if you had a strong basis for believing that prices next year would be much higher, and some methodology for estimating those prices, then I could see some case. But we have no reason to think that these prices are not the true market price for the present, or for the near future. Also, it’s not as if the population of buyers is temporarily restricted b/c, for example, credit availability is frozen.
I’m not convinced (although maybe I could be) that “distressed” is a useful distinction here. Is the bank forced to sell below “true market price” for some reason?
BTW, thanks as always, G.
DZ – Are you still SFH shopping?
I’ve been noticing a lot of cool places between Ashland & Western in the Erie, Huron, Superior, Ohio area… Probably not the best if you are looking based on schools though.
“What’s the principle for what should be used as the “market price” or whatever price for tax purposes? …
I’m not convinced (although maybe I could be) that “distressed” is a useful distinction here. Is the bank forced to sell below “true market price” for some reason?”
1. Administrative convenience and avoidance of everyone appealing on the basis of one distressed sale.
2. Has anyone described a short sale process that didn’t involve delay and lack of information? Time + uncertainty has a real dollar value that is not easily determined. I believe that virtually every short sale sells at some discount to what the same property would sell for from a unrestricted, mortgage-payoff-shortfall-free seller who used (1) a marketing strategy that didn’t involve accommodating a barely interested party with veto rights and (2) a pricing strategy that didn’t start with pricing too high in wishing to pay off the lien and then (most often) too slowly reducing the price.
“I’ve been noticing a lot of cool places between Ashland & Western in the Erie, Huron, Superior, Ohio area… Probably not the best if you are looking based on schools though.”
Still looking but yes schools are a significant factor. We could give up a neighborhood school for the right place but my impression (perhaps wrong) is that this area isn’t family ideal. I have looked online at houses there from time to time and have liked many.
“Administrative convenience and avoidance of everyone appealing on the basis of one distressed sale.”
Ok, but that’s more of an issue of sample size, which is a fair point. But if it applies, it should apply regardless of whether sales are distressed. If there is one anomalous sale (based on sale price relative to implied market value) for whatever reason, then you should ignore, or down weight. And this point doesn’t apply if there are lots of distressed sales setting the market.
“Has anyone described a short sale process that didn’t involve delay and lack of information? Time + uncertainty has a real dollar value that is not easily determined. I believe that virtually every short sale sells at some discount to what the same property would sell for from a unrestricted, mortgage-payoff-shortfall-free seller who used (1) a marketing strategy that didn’t involve accommodating a barely interested party with veto rights and (2) a pricing strategy that didn’t start with pricing too high in wishing to pay off the lien and then (most often) too slowly reducing the price.”
Maybe I have too much faith in the market. The bank, which has veto rights, should be trying to get as much as it can. Yes, there are frictions that make the bank a less informed/capable party than an owner selling a home but I argue they would be relatively modest. If there’s a big friction, why isn’t there competition among entrepreneurs with capital that bids up the price.
Having said that, I’ll agree the pricing strategy for the Damen condo seems a little misguided. If I had been in the market for a $675K condo, I’m not sure I would have put in a bid. Maybe I would have but there’s a good chance some would not. Seems like a big drop from the final list (nevermind the original list) to sale price.
“Maybe I have too much faith in the market. The bank, which has veto rights, should be trying to get as much as it can. Yes, there are frictions that make the bank a less informed/capable party than an owner selling a home but I argue they would be relatively modest. If there’s a big friction, why isn’t there competition among entrepreneurs with capital that bids up the price. ”
Compare to the mortgage assignment nightmare–the banks are poorly informed, their RMBS groups overloaded, undertrained, and–certainly now–seen as a cost center to be slashed to the bone, rather than adequately funded and staffed with capable people (how do they set appropriate bonuses and targets when they are so busy hiding the magnitude of the expected losses at the Corp level?).