Have Your Single Family Home in the Sky: 125 S. Jefferson in the West Loop
This 3-bedroom unit at 125 S. Jefferson, the Park Alexandria, in the West Loop, has more square footage than your typical high rise condo unit in this price range.
The southeast corner unit was originally two units combined and at 2000 square feet, totals more square footage than many city single family homes.
The listing says it has had $40,000 in recent high end upgrades.
The kitchen is described as “new” and has stainless steel appliances and granite counter tops.
There are hardwood floors thoroughout and 2 balconies.
It also has the lusted after condo feature of the full-sized side-by-side washer/dryer in its own 9×7 laundry room.
The master suite is also large and sports a 12×11 walk-in closet.
Is this a steal for the square footage?
Gary Lucido at Lucid Realty has the listing. See more pictures and the floorplan here.
Unit #2506: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 2000 square feet
- Sold in February 2004 for $610,000 (two parking spaces included)
- Sold in May 2007 for $522,500 (looks like one parking space included)
- Currently listed for $549,850 (2 car parking $29,900 extra each space)
- Assessments of $835 a month (plus $49 for each parking space)
- Taxes of $7591 (plus $452/$466 for each parking space)
- Central Air
- In-unit washer/dryer
- Bedroom #1: 21×17
- Bedroom #2: 18×11
- Bedroom #3: 15×10
- Master closet: 12×11
- Laundry room: 9×7
Is there a noticeable difference between the two halves of the West Loop on each side of the expressway?
In my mind, I identify the eastern portion with downtown and the western portion with UIC.
seems like a very nice unit, good location, good price. I think it should sell in the mid – upper 500s with both parking spaces.
why u need to pay $49 assessment for parking space?
I don’t see the western portion of the West Loop as UIC, except south of 290. The immediate subset west of 90/94 is Greektown and the whole west of 90/94 and north of 290 is West Loop.
I know some people have trouble identifying east of 90/94 as true West Loop as it lacks the neighborhood feel (what little there is) on the west side. Just too close to the office buildings.
I don’t get this 290 and such business. I call them the Eisenhower (sometimes the Congress), the Ryan and the Kennedy. Much easier I think.
“I don’t get this 290 and such business. I call them the Eisenhower (sometimes the Congress), the Ryan and the Kennedy. Much easier I think.”
Except when communicating with anyone that isn’t an old man from the Chicago area. I’ve lived here over ten years and still get confused by the names. If you can convince google maps to change to the names (or even the road signage), you’ll get us youngin’s on board…not sure it would make anything easier, though…
“I don’t get this 290 and such business. ”
Stupid Californians ruining everything. At least they aren’t Angelenos, notable for appending “the”, as in “the 290”.
i live in the area…not much difference imho…east side can have less foot traffic around on weekends/at night as there are always more people on Halsted all things equal, but i’d still say there is a neighborhood feel there.
the expressway is there but it’s just not that big of a deal. at least it’s never bothered me.
anyway, trying to exactly define neighborhoods with definitive dividing lines is pretty pointless, imho. the Loop blends into the West Loop/Greektown, etc.
as for this place, i’d say it is pretty fairly priced. will be an interesting one to watch.
I don’t get the people names either. I just know how to get places.
Nice looking home and well staged & presented, Kudos to Gary
Things I like
* 3 good sized bedrooms 2 good sized baths
* balcony off the kitchen instead of bedroom/living with good views
* $275/sqft in a very conveinent near loop location
only improvement I would make is to have this place have a north east view instead of south east but that place is nice
I don’t see it getting over 500k. Unrealistic to list it at more than 200z price.
Good God, the assessments are a joke
“Unrealistic to list it at more than 200z price.”
But it’s listed below (slightly, but still) the 2004 price. Seems like a good asking price, esp. if they are willing to accept/prepared for offers of ~10% off/or including the parking for the base price.
A $275/sqft price sounds pretty reasonable for this place.
below the ’04 sales price plus they renovated since ’07 it seems.
my guess is they won’t have to go less than $525…with two balconies and those rather large bedrooms though i wouldn’t be surprised if they get closer to ask…but on the safe side i’ll stick with $525K….assuming the building is in relatively healthy shape which i believe it is…but not positive.
Gary,
Nice unit and I agree that it seems well priced. Hate those association rules that often penalize a multiple unit owner when combining units. I recall a high rise I lived in in Wrigleyville. One unit owner (who was also a board member at the time) owned 8 or 9 units and had turned 5 of them into his personal residence, It was a pretty spectacular place.
The issue was that for things like cable TV and garbage contracts they used the original unit count to figure cost per unit. He argued unsuccessfully that since he lived in the 5 units he should only pay once for those 5 units. His motion was rejected. This meant that artificially he was paying 5x for cable and garbage. A minor cost in comparison to his percentage share of the building but a large added cost regardless.
Real Chicagoan Criteria #47: Using Names for Expressways.
I really like this place.
jp3chicago,
Interesting point. What’s different about this unit is that it occupies the space of those 2 units but it was originally built this way by the developer – i.e. it never existed as two separate units – and the % ownership was calculated accordingly. So I don’t think they got penalized in this way.
“Hate those association rules that often penalize a multiple unit owner when combining units”
40k in high end upgrades were not in the bathrooms for sure.
and would have liked to see a 1/2 bath (powder room)
also would trade that third bed for a bigger dining room. well given i could arrange the living room to make it a living/dining room combo.
but what i would give for that closet space 🙂
Gary Thanks for the clarification. In normal times it is not a huge deal either way but could be something to think about for those seeking to combine units in other buildings. This could be especially heavy if there was a special assesment done. In my wife’s condo they had a specific $$ amount figured out for each sized unit. Studio’s were X, One bedrooms were X, and Two bedrooms were X. Had you combined units you would still likely be responsible for the larger amount rather than a subsidized amount based on the combined space. They levied a special of 25K for each 1 bedroom unit. Ouch!
Thos assessments are going to kill the wanted sale price of this place. $1642 a month for taxes and assessments. Ouch. Hopefully it includes just about everything.
Mike HG,
Thanks for pointing out that I should clarify this. Yes, they include cable and HVAC.
Assessments are based on %ownership. Which is your sq.ft-age devided by the total sq.ft-age of all combined units.
So if you have 1000sqft in a building of a total of 10,000sqft of units, then you own 10%. So you pay 10% of the total budget.
It doesnt matter if your 1000-sqft unit is a 1 or 2 bedroom, what floor its on, if it used to be 2 units. Its (almost) solely based on %ownership. (I say almost b/c sometime HOA charge fees for things like cable or internet).
For every HOA there is a Rule & Bylaw which will have a survey/plat of every unit. Thats how the %ownership is determined.
I own a 1 bed in a 19 unit walkup. Most of the 1 beds are 800sqft. All the 2 beds are 1000sqft. There is one 1 bed that is 950sqft. About 2-3 times a year, that owner yells at me that his assessments are higher that the rest of the 1 bedrooms. I explain in detail, he yells, I insult him regarding his inability to understand basic math, he yells, I walk away, repeat.
(ohh, for want of spellcheck)
I really do like this place…very reasonable asking and I think it will see some interest at this level. In order to amplify sales potential, the fact it is a combo unit should be emphasized over and over for the buyers to realize what a real deal this really is.
And of course I second the kudos to Gary for providing such a professional listing and the well above average photos accompanying it. This is how ALL Chicagoland RE agents and brokers should operate their company… honesty, integrity and providing accurate facts goes a long way when selling. FANTASTIC JOB Gary!!
And a ton of gratitude for providing an awesome floorplan. This too needs to be a requirement for all listings. Perhaps between Lucido and Ames setting the bar, others will follow.
I also agree about the method of calculating assessment charges when units are combined. The usual method used is the square footage for the unit and not whether or not multiple units are combined.
The WL should officially start west of 90 and north of 290. This is where you get the neighborhood feel. To me, east of 90 seems cold and barren, even there are a number of condo buildings located there.
As far as having a larger space for a dining room, to me it is lost usable space as a unit such as this would rarely, if ever be used for entertaining as in a formal dinner party.
Both my parents and grands have large…huge actually, dining rooms and go unused other than during holidays. The trend is towards smaller eat in kitchens or open plans where a section of the LR is used specifically for that purpose.
Again, very nice unit represented by one of the, if not THE most professional RE Agencies in the city. GREAT JOB Gary!!
“(ohh, for want of spellcheck)”
I use a device called a “dictionary”. 😉
“And a ton of gratitude for providing an awesome floorplan. This too needs to be a requirement for all listings. Perhaps between Lucido and Ames setting the bar, others will follow.”
Also MG. His listings all have floorplans, too.
“Assessments are based on %ownership. Which is your sq.ft-age devided by the total sq.ft-age of all combined units. ”
That’s not actually right. The Condo Act sez:
“(765 ILCS 605/4) (from Ch. 30, par. 304)
Sec. 4. Declaration ? Contents.) The declaration shall set forth the following particulars:
[…]
(e) The percentage of ownership interest in the common elements allocated to each unit. Such percentages shall be computed by taking as a basis the value of each unit in relation to the value of the property as a whole, and having once been determined and set forth as herein provided, such percentages shall remain constant unless otherwise provided in this Act or thereafter changed by agreement of all unit owners. ”
So it’s *value* not square footage.
@anon,
-I see what you are referencing but that makes no sense. Unless by ‘value’, it actaully means ‘size’ (in some conveluded legalese).
Just think about 2 same size new construction units. Unit A is base at $200K, unit B goes nuts and upgrades everything up to $300K.
Just b/c unit b cost 50% more doesnt mean it use 50% more of common area/maintenance. I now in my Condo Docs. it list out the sqft for each unit, totals it up, and divides each units %. I pay exactly the same as the unit above me. And actually $5 more then the guy below me since his unit is a few sqft smaller than mine due ot the hallway configuration.
@oldman,
I still remember dictionaries and even encyclopedias. Ask a kid under 16 and see the confused look you would get.
“-I see what you are referencing but that makes no sense. Unless by ‘value’, it actaully means ’size’ (in some conveluded legalese).”
It doesn’t. It means “value”. Which is why in high rise condos, you will (sometimes–not always) see units in the same tier having different assessments–the higher floors have higher “values” even tho they are exactly the same size.
In the unit I owned in wrigley I was told that they apparently combined the value and the percentage ownership when the building was converted to condos in the 80’s. As stated above the sq ft calculations were used for size of units but the floor also had an impact. Higher floors paid more based on the value of the property at the time of conversion.
In addition some things like garbage and cable TV were not looked at by percentage of ownership but rather assigned a fee per unit. I can not take the time to lookup and quote the condo docs or condo law but right or wrong I assure you that that is what this building had done.
@Tom(tfo).
The calculation varies based on the condo’s by-laws. My building has a number of identically-sized units on different floors. The unit above mine was originally listed for $10,000 more than mine, and their assessments are higher.
The calculation didn’t include upgrades – just the original value of the units. Our building has many different sized units – several two bedrooms that range in size from 1000sf to 1500sf, but ultimately the “value” as defined by offer price was used to calculate the ownership percent and ultimately the assessments.