Buy a 1-Bedroom Instead of Renting It? 1234 W. Argyle in Uptown
This 1-bedroom plus den at 1234 W. Argyle in Uptown was a 2004 conversion.
It has most of the bells and whistles including central air and parking but appears to be missing the in-unit washer/dryer.
It’s also listed $15,600 less than it last sold for in 2004 (if you include parking).
Is this a case where buying might actually be cheaper than renting?
Matt Garrison at Coldwell Banker has the listing. See more pictures here.
Unit #3F: 1 bedroom, den, no square footage listed
- Sold in September 2004 for $230,500
- Currently listed for $199,900 (plus $15,000 for parking)
- Assessments of $169 a month
- Taxes of $3240
- Central Air
- No in-unit washer/dryer
- Balcony
- Living room: 16×13
- Kitchen: 10×10
- Bedroom #1: 12×10
- Den/Dining room: 10×9 (apparently, the kitchen was opened up into the den which is being used as a dining room)
I don’t know the area that well, but I will say its refreshing to see a nice listing here at a nice price that isn’t deficient in some area.
The only negative might be the taxes and assessments, they seem a little high for a 1br and potentially the neighborhood, which I am unfamiliar with.
Still this is a nice unit that has all of its boxed checked in terms of what I’m looking for: top floor, deck, den, parking, central air, lots of windows, nice rehab.
Near the Argyle Red line stop and not far from the Ravenswood Metra dare I say this will sell at or near ask to a yup willing to give Uptown a chance.
I agree, this is a nice one bedroom unit. Not too cramped and not trying to be something it isn’t. As for the taxes, I’m not sure if this unit is far enough north, but can anyone tell if it will be affected by the Wilson Yards TIF issue?
no w/d in unit. pass
You can presumably add w/d. So its an extra expense of 1k or so, not a big deal or dealbreaker to me.
“can anyone tell if it will be affected by the Wilson Yards TIF issue”
Even if it were across the street, how would it be affected by the Wilson Yards TIF?
I mean except for the present fact of adding new public housing to an area with too much already.
“You can presumably add w/d. So its an extra expense of 1k or so, not a big deal or dealbreaker to me.”
Isn’t it more of an issue of where to put them? It’ll be more than a grand if you need to plumb a closet not adjacent to the existing pipes.
The $200k one bedroom on Argyle? Hahahahaha. $125k by 2011.
“and potentially the neighborhood, which I am unfamiliar with.”
I lived out around here for a few years in the early 90’s. Used to take the red line at all hours. Saw a lot of very interesting things. I remember a cop looking at my license over something in a better hood (can’t remember why) and he comments on my address, “Wow, that’s the arm pit of Chicago”.
I hear Uptown’s improved but I don’t get out that way anymore. I just can’t help but put Uptown and armpit together from then on.
“Hahahahaha. $125k by 2011.”
Hey if you’re right I might be your neighbor in 2011, HD!
I’m not about to spend 31% or whatever the Chicago CHC Ubergovernment thinks people should spend as a percentage of their gross income on housing in their grandiose plan for society. Where I come from (other city) my housing expense was 20% of my net and I intend to keep it that way.
The stupid CHC ubergovernment and their dumb income programs and grandiose designs for society, look at this MLS listing (MLS #:06979372) where they think they’re going to get subsidized housing for a 1br in Bridgeport for 155k and the developer is asking 215k for similar 1BRs (MLS# 07066010) bwhahaha. There was a short sale up the street for 108k of similar square footage recently. Who is gonna pay 215k to live next to section 8 when I can pay half that and live nearby in a comparable quality unit?
Economic fundamentals are currently and will continue to deliver a strong kick in the @$$ to these societal engineers and planners. Financial bankruptcy and liquidation await.
“20% of my net”
Dude, even HD will say that’s low as a cost of ownership. Rental, sure, makes sense. But why undertake the headaches of owning, if you want to spend that little?
It is not too bad of a street and walking distance to Andersonville. Close to public transportation, but the Argyle Redline stop is pretty much Little Vietnam. The area may be too much for some of the plain vanilla naperville types though.
I split my rent with the SO but my half is less than 10% of my take home. On a good day I don’t want to double my housing expense to own. However, I recognize that there are plenty of bozos out there willing pay much a higher percentage of their income to own and ultimately I’m competing against them. If I don’t want to pony up the monthly payment then I’m going to rent forever. Two bungalows in my hood sold in the 300’s in the last few weeks. One went for $343k and the other went under K in less than 2 weeks with a list of $325k. These are old ass unrenovated crapshacks that need a ton of work to even bring them into the 1980’s. One of them didn’t even have interior pictures in the MLS it was so old. It sold for $343… Which is super frustrating and people out there are still willing to put all their money into real estate, even if its a crapshack, just to own. Even with normalized lending standards, unless you’re willing to pay a higher multiple of income you cannot expect to even buy a shack in a halfway decent area.
Or Edumakated, naperville may be too much for the Vietnamese….
One benefit of living here is that there are like 10 awesome Pho soup places within walking distance.
anon (tfo), I asked the question because almost $60M in financing for the Wilson Yards project is paid for by TIF funds from that neighborhood. I’m curious to know if the TIF boundaries for this project go as far north as Argyle?
“But why undertake the headaches of owning, if you want to spend that little?”
Because at a certain point on the low end owning becomes cash flow positive vs renting in Chicago. Rents in Chicago really don’t vary much at the low end. Or rather your losing a LOT of quality & SF for maybe savings of $100-200/month. But when you’re talking about properties priced under 130k or so, thats cash flow positive vs. renting from my viewpoint. Plus a wall to hang the plasma and achieving my dream of an under counter kegerator.
Plus the capital loss risk is less in absolute terms. To keep it simple say I buy a 100k place and it drops to 80k I’m really only out 20k even if I’m down 20%. The person who bought the 290k place that loses 20% is down 58k.
HD thats the point, valuation will be supported, prices wont go down to the level u argue they should, the fundamentals have changed, (whether is good or bad; we’ll argue that for a while) but there are other factors coming down the pipeline, labor mrkt contractions (eventually babyboomers will retire, might be out a few yrs longer now but it will happen) need for more immigration, etc. These will make owning for the long term a winning proposition.
If you secure an updated crap shack at a good price your ahead of the game.
Good luck finding a “low end” cash flow property in a desirable hood that hasn’t already been sucked up by a landlord.
Properties like that are always the first to go, that’s why you typically have a small ownership premium. Because if everything was cash flow positive, everyone would be a successful landlord.
“anon (tfo), I asked the question because almost $60M in financing for the Wilson Yards project is paid for by TIF funds from that neighborhood. I’m curious to know if the TIF boundaries for this project go as far north as Argyle?”
And I ask because I don’t know how you think a TIF district affects an individual unit and its owner. Let’s say this is within the TIF boundaries. So what–other than Helen (or her successor) gets a slush fund?
Sonies: “Because if everything was cash flow positive, everyone would be a successful landlord.”
I’ve learned so much from my client I would make a great landlord but I have enough headaches in my life that I have zero desire to do so. Being a landlord is more than being cash flow positive; although it does help make things easier. it’s not for everyone.
ChiREvassel: “If you secure an updated crap shack at a good price your ahead of the game.”
What is a good price? To me $343,000 for a 2 bedroom bungalow that needs a lot of TLC isn’t a deal but someone else apparently thinks it is. Prices need to find a balances, where all the knifecatchers have been sufficiently bled to death, and there are a sustainable number of properties selling at regular and sustainable prices. $343k and $325k bungalow crapshacks going under contract in two weeks doesn’t seem sustainable to me. I could see a steady stream of updated bungalows available for sale in the $200’s in my ‘hood; it’s not like the city is running out of bungalows.
“Because at a certain point on the low end owning becomes cash flow positive vs renting in Chicago.”
At a certain point, owning becomes cash flow positive everywhere. But as Sonies points out, when ownership costs drop below rental costs, landlords create a floor. The major variable then is cost of funds.
But lets look at a hypothetical $100k single person. FICA+Medicare+IL State tax is ~$10k. Federal tax is ~$20K. Leaving take home at about $70k, so you’d want housing expense below $14k–under $1200/month for all your ownership costs–with assessments + taxes + insurance + maintenance reserve pushing $500/month, you’d service a ~$150k loan at 4.75%.
That may be prudent, but I’m a hell of a lot happier not living my life that way.
“I could see a steady stream of updated bungalows available for sale in the $200’s in my ‘hood”
You had lunch with Ze!!!
Unless by “updated” you mean brought from the 50s to the 80s, and thus still 30 years out of date, but no longer fire hazards with *no* insulation.
I don’t think uptown is as bad as it looks. I have met a few dog owners that decided to buy in uptown years ago because of the proximity to the dog beach, better $/sq ft than LP/downtown/LV and there is more street parking available. Is there a Metra stop anywhere near there?
HD, it just the economic of what you’d like to see is not feasible, except for a short sale/foreclosure, where the updating has happen and the place is selling for below market value.
Electrical, plumbing, HVAC, are the most common rehab-updates to CHI area properties (at least many properties have hdwdflrs, but everybody ‘needs’ granite countertops and marble bathrooms) , each costing a good chunk of change, not to mention inherent land values, and if the exterior is brick/stone. At least siding is a cheaper alternative for other properties.
Those bungalows ur talking about might need 100K in work and materials.
Sonies: is right most places even close to cashflow are snatched quick.
So that leads to the question, how will the market go down to the levels ur talking about? it seems to me if that occurs the country is in deeper $h!t, than even now.
btw: There was a program b4, but with the recession I don’t know about funding, but you could get a matching grant from the city to update the exterior of a bungalows, that with other tax incentives will alter price valuation, to a point higher than would normal exist in a free mrkt.
“Good luck finding a “low end” cash flow property in a desirable hood that hasn’t already been sucked up by a landlord.
Properties like that are always the first to go, that’s why you typically have a small ownership premium. Because if everything was cash flow positive, everyone would be a successful landlord.”
Desirable hood is subjective. The less desirable the hood to non-investors the more possible to get a cashflow positive property I agree. Also most professional landlords own multi-unit buildings and wouldn’t want to be burdened with 1 unit in a building in neighborhood X and another across town. Unless you’re talking about amateur landlords/stuck flippers who have no idea the time overhead and headaches associated with being a landlord of various scattered units that might cf a hundred a month. Its my guess in this downturn the amateur landlords/stuck flippers are going to flame out en masse.
You do typically have a not so small/quite large ownership premium in most areas at the present, however I am seeing some short sales and foreclosures where there IS a discount on the low end. Generally so far you need to look for these and they are not in what most CCers define as ‘desirable hoods’ but rather in places like here or Bridgeport.
To answer your question Lauren this unit is .9 miles from the Ravenswood Metra stop.
Sorry but I see 1br’s in River North for 199, why should I buy this one? homedelete is right, 125k by 2011.
“So that leads to the question, how will the market go down to the levels ur talking about?”
Lower rents. Yes, it is very likely that the country will be “in deeper $h!t, than even now.”
Too many rental units mean lower rents. Supply and demand.
My updated bungalow doesn’t require granite countertops and marble bathrooms. it justs needs to be newer not top of the line.
Avocado and goldenrod galore ok with you? 🙂
“But lets look at a hypothetical $100k single person.”
This is where you lost 95% of the board.
“Sorry but I see 1br’s in River North for 199, why should I buy this one? homedelete is right, 125k by 2011.”
You do? With a parking space? Please e-mail me the locations (with an up-to-date kitchen.)
Actually in Plaza 440 there’s a short sale for $149,000. There are some in 10 E. Ontario (also distressed sellers.) There are occasional junior 1-bedrooms in this price range. Not sure many would have parking.
To the early poster CK:
Everything’s relative. About 10 yrs, a Calif friend visited me in Chicago for the first time. His comment? “You sure do live in the armpit of the country”.
I was up around here late last year for the first time in years, and it did seem noticeably better than what I remember. Not $215k 1 bdrm better, but better nonetheless.