Get a 2-Bedroom Loft for 38% Off the 2008 Price: 333 W. Hubbard in River North
This 2-bedroom loft in the Union Square Lofts at 333 W. Hubbard in River North has been on the market since August 2011.
It is bank owned and has been reduced $9100 in that time.
It is in the concrete portion of the building, so it has concrete ceilings and some exposed brick along the wall of windows.
The loft appears to be south facing- as the balcony looks into the Merchandise Mart.
From the pictures, the kitchen and baths appear to be intact.
The kitchen has maple cabinets, black granite counter tops and black appliances.
It appears from the pictures that only one of the bedrooms has windows.
The loft has all the features buyers look for including central air, washer/dryer in the unit and parking.
This unit is a Fannie Mae Homepath property.
The listing says: “Seller is offering for Owner Occupant purchaser(s) up to 3.5% of final sales price to be used as closing costs assistance, must close by Oct. 31, 2011 to be eligible”
How much has changed in the Chicago housing market in just the last few years?
In the 2007 listing for this loft it says: “Little updating-instant equity!”
This is the cheapest 2/2 loft currently listed in the building.
It is now listed 38%, or $180,100, under the 2008 purchase price.
Is this a deal?
[You’ll notice that Fannie Mae has now owned it for a year.]
Coya Smith at Smith Partners & Associates has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #417: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, no square footage listed
- Sold in March 1998 for $148,000
- Sold in September 2001 for $375,000 (typo?- should it be $275,000?)
- Sold in February 2006 for $359,500
- Sold in January 2008 for $475,000
- Lis pendens foreclosure filed in August 2009
- Bank owned in October 2010
- Originally listed in August 2011 for $304,000
- Reduced
- Currently listed at $294,900 (includes the parking)
- Assessments of $541 a month (includes a/c, gas, cable)
- Taxes of $3948
- Central Air
- Washer/Dryer in the unit
- Bedroom #1: 13×13
- Bedroom #2: 13×12
Windowless bedroom is another name for a large closet.
So how many mortgage payments did this clown make?
2008 Seller is my hero.
“This is the cheapest 2/2 loft currently listed in the building.”
No, this is the least overpriced 2/2 in the building.
$265
This looks and feels like tenement housing. All that’s missing are the clotheslines stringed from balcony to balcony. Just imagine some shirtless dude dumping his garage in the street yelling to his neighbor “hey vito!”
I like the building. For tenement housing look at the pic in LP Sabrina posted yesterday with all the for sale signs. I’ll say it again, looks like Lathrop Homes.
I also like this building, I had a friend who owned a unit here way back in the day and it was pimp. I just want to know who the douche is that bought this for almost a half million freaking dollars in 2008.
http://www.maggieblanck.com/NewYork/PicsNY07/020307a7.jpg
Tenement housing. Similar but not entirely the same. This is ‘luxury’ tenement housing for the big 10 generation.
Way back in the day meaning 1998.
wow bad, how did the 2008 seller sell this? HAS to be fraud or something
I can only assume they lost their job immediately after closing. Strange though.
generic and dated. this style of loft conversion didn’t age well (not just this building – everything from early 2000’s.
$225K
You peeps are funny. Where are you going to get a 2-2 with parking downtown for $225,000?
Then again, after last nights festivities I think I woke up .08 so don’t mind me.
870/mo before the mortgage note? eat shit & die.
and HD this is indeed luxury housing for big10 generation because regular housing is their parents basement.
Jason its not where you find this type of mccrapboxes for 225 the more pertinent Q is when and my guess is mid decade.
I love watching loft people get financially slaughtered because I’ve observed they are far more likely to act rich but aren’t vs. the general population. Congrats loft DB you’ve just caught up with the joneses–by losing your DB McCrapBox to the bank!! 😀
Vlakos you are a moron and likely have never seen lathrop except from driving by.
Sure if this was in the S.Loop or Buena Park sure 225k is reasonable, but this is in a decent River north location (despite the view of the mart) and I belive it will sell around the ask price, probably around 285k
Bob, it is you that are the moron. I know a lot about public housing.
I hate the finishes and the 4:3 TV nook above the fireplace. The ring of mildew around the bathtub is a nice touch, too. That 2008 seller really lucked out. It looks like the buyer must have never made a payment…and probably didn’t wash the bathroom either.
“Then again, after last nights festivities I think I woke up .08 so don’t mind me.”
You lost me with this.
He woke up drunk.
Thanks HD, I had too much Dolcetto last night myself.
Thanks HD!! LOL. It was one hell of a night. But thank god that one legged prostitute turned out to be one hell of a lawyer.
The place has nothing going for it other than a good location and parking. Might sit for a while! Should hold $250+
Finishes suck, but the location and size are pretty good, so I agree that this goes for near ask. Considering that almost all utilities are included, I don’t think that the assessments are that bad. Could be made really nice with about $30k.
Hey brau, I’m a bear stearns trader! check out my uber urbane loft!
“likely have never seen lathrop except from driving by”
So, what, you hang out with your baby mama there a lot? Please.
“Hey brau, I’m a bear stearns trader!”
Analyst, maybe. Trader, this would have been the in-town GFs in-town.
Bob on October 14th, 2011 at 8:44 am
I love watching loft people get financially slaughtered because I’ve observed they are far more likely to act rich but aren’t vs. the general population. Congrats loft DB you’ve just caught up with the joneses–by losing your DB McCrapBox to the bank!!
You have issues my friend. I hope one day you take care of them.
Why are you guys assuming the 2008 seller “lucked out”? Do you think he sold and put his profits into a Gold ETF? No, instead he probably bought an equally overpriced RN condo.
“Why are you guys assuming the 2008 seller “lucked out”? Do you think he sold and put his profits into a Gold ETF? No, instead he probably bought an equally overpriced RN condo.”
She moved to Seattle and got married. Then paid $725k for a 3/2.5 SFH (that sold in 01 for $261 and ’03 for $595).
http://www.coldwellbankeronline.com/property/details/2182233/MLS-07849046/333-West-Hubbard-Street-Chicago-Near-North-Side-IL-60654.aspx
Wow. Vile comments. I wonder where all your bravado would go if you had to post your real names. Karma … just remember. It all comes back at you.
“I had a friend who owned a unit here way back in the day and it was pimp.”
This is not Big 10 grad territory, unless you are talking about the Univ. of Michigan. Bob is right, this is basically loft, douche-bag terra-firma, the likes of Highland Park types subsidized by their parents, Sex and the City wannabes back in the 2001-2003 era. “Hey dude, you goin’ to Green Tie Ball? I’m picking up Rachel at 7:30….” those types, not Big Ten. Yeah they overpaid, big time.
grace… Bob is simply CC’s resident socialist. He cheers for economic redistribution and that all people should be economically equal. Well i assume that he is, as he does constantly cheer the rich having their money taken from them.
No, ze, he laughs at them for giving it away.
“You have issues my friend. I hope one day you take care of them.”
Yes Alex and one of them will be the proper allocation of my portfolio. Likely something the likes of you and your caste won’t need to worry about!
This warehouse was never meant to be residential, the conversion to lofts is attrocious, the layout is awful, the developer probably made a ton of money by shortchanging buyer by making bedrooms with windows, and overall, this building is pitiful. This is not vile, it is the truth.
G… I still say, Bob’s true color is pinko!! Explains the big open house, may 1st party, that he throws every year. And then there was the time he shaved his head and made us all call him Vladimir.
I stand corrected, ze.
As for karma, how can someone be so sure that’s not what’s being returned? The karmic avenging must come from somewhere, right?
Off Topic;
anyone else notice that the Cook county recorder of deeds website is down, and has been down since at least yesterday?
http://www.ccrd.info
“The karmic avenging must come from somewhere, right?”
Absolutely.. always does.
And all the talk of fast food last week, made me try McDonalds for da first time in ages… Delicious!!!
“anyone else notice that the Cook county recorder of deeds website is down, and has been down since at least yesterday?”
Clear your cache. Works for me.
Have you been in this building homedelete? I highly doubt you have, so to judge this and say that it should have stayed a furniture warehouse for the mart based upon this one distressed unit is totally stupid.
Sonies.. certainly his rental is nicer than this.. same bldg.
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/333-W-Hubbard-St-60654/unit-705/home/12766556
I liken myself more of a Stalinist but if you want to associate me with the formaldehyde laden publicly displayed corpse so be it. Damn Russians are just weird.
“certainly his rental is nicer than this”
He doesn’t need to sweep up the cig butts from the upper-level balconies. Which is worth $250k, easy.
Still better than chamber pots.
Back to the current listing, I can’t believe that the following unit which was just “sold before print” is worth that much more than this unit. I guess the seller was just very very smart…
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/3232-N-Halsted-St-60657/unit-H301/home/12742612
“I guess the seller was just very very smart…”
You mean the one that bought it in 2009? He might be smart, but not in real estate.
3232 N Halsted #H301:
9/16/08 listed $449,900
2/9/09 reduced $419,900
3/13/09 contract
4/14/09 closed $390,000 (Such a deal at 13% under orig list in 2009!)
9/27/11 listed $365,000
9/27/11 contract
10/11/11 closed $360,000
That’s about a $55K loss from sale price and transaction costs for 2.5 years’ work as a landlord.
“That’s about a $55K loss from sale price and transaction costs for 2.5 years’ work as a landlord.”
But between $2k/month net cashflow from rent and depreciation, he must be way ahead, right? Right?
clio youre a dope and nobody cares about your boystown crash pad selling for a huge loss
Well, he is very, very smart. Wait a sec, are you suggesting that this person tied up $390,000 in cash for those 30 months?
It is kind of like going into a battlefield and coming out with a small scar. When compared to the brutal hits everyone is taking, I think the seller of the halsted property actually did well. I wonder what it was about that unit in that building that was so worthy of it selling so fast…
“are you suggesting that this person tied up $390,000 in cash for those 30 months?”
Nah, just $100k. But I hear those units are easy renters for premium rates. Had to have been flowing 6% cash-on-cash, after taxes, maintenance and HOA, no? Or was it just all hype?
“brutal hits everyone is taking”
Only bubbleheaded buyers, not everyone. Many sold in 2004-07. Plenty rented.
“Or was it just all hype?”
Well, it’s better to be lucky than smart. Problem with this guy is that he found luck and thought it made him smart. So, now he gives it back to the house.
Have any of you assholes made ANY money in real estate? I have made in the 7 figures. Part of being an investor is being able to take the good with the bad (the gains with the losses). Nobody wins 100% of the time. The only losers are the ones that stay out of the game.
“Have any of you assholes made ANY money in real estate? I have made in the 7 figures.”
Oh. That was yours? I thought it was just some property you’d been following.
“Oh. That was yours? I thought it was just some property you’d been following.”
Never said it was mine – I can still be angry at the ignorant comments made by the spectators on this site.
I’ve said for a while inventory sucks and lookie here, the WSJ finally picks up on this meme
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204774604576631381117760982.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle
“I’ve said for a while inventory sucks and lookie here, the WSJ finally picks up on this meme”
The benefit of such a poor selection is that sellers can absolutely get a quick sale on their properties if they price them right. Remember, I sold TWO places on the day I listed them a few weeks ago. (Take a look at the example I gave above). It is a great time to sell (if you have a desirable unit/location and you are reasonable about your selling price).
“Have any of you assholes made ANY money in real estate? I have made in the 7 figures.”
Agreed. You are the only asshole here who has made money in real estate.
“The only losers are the ones that stay out of the game.”
Even if I sold all my investments by 2007 and stayed out since? That would make me a loser?
“It is a great time to sell.”
Well, it’s better than tomorrow anyway. You’re just getting it? A great time to sell was 2004-07.
“Even if I sold all my investments by 2007 and stayed out since? That would make me a loser?”
Hindsight is 20/20. I doubt you sold all your real estate investments in 2007 – and if you did, it was because of dumb luck – not foresight.
“Agreed. You are the only asshole here who has made money in real estate.”
G, you could have saved your fingers some effort, retained indisputable accuracy, by cutting the sentence off before the word (who).
“I doubt you sold all your real estate investments in 2007 – and if you did, it was because of dumb luck – not foresight.”
I did as well.. Well 3 of 4. Clio, let’s face it, stick to reading charts. You don’t know jack shit about investing.
ze – what kind of loser lives in brazil and posts on a chicago real estate blog? unless you are an unemployed liar/loser. So sick of the lying losers on this site- you don’t contribute one useful piece of information related to real estate.
“ze – what kind of loser lives in brazil and posts on a chicago real estate blog? unless you are an unemployed liar/loser. So sick of the lying losers on this site- you don’t contribute one useful piece of information related to real estate.”
Unemployed.. Yep!
Loser- well sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. So technically speaking, I can not argue with you.
you don’t contribute one useful piece of information – I try to dumb it down sometimes so I don’t speak over people, obviously you need it more dumbed down. I can only go so far.
And I’d say I was U.S. bear since I have been here… that makes me more right than you. Also odd that all but 1 of my RE assets are all size positive since 07-08. Can’t say the same, can ya?
Had ya only listened to me…
“Never said it was mine ”
“Remember, I sold TWO places on the day I listed them a few weeks ago. (Take a look at the example I gave above). ”
I thought you said you never lie here? Or was that someone else, on your behalf?
anon, huh? I never said it was mine – I never said it wasn’t mine. Also, look carefully at my statements – I don’t and didn’t lie. Honestly, as an attorney or cpa and English/grammatical freak I would think you would read more carefully.
Oh, so you’re an agent. Good to know.
Why’d you go that route after all that fancy schooling? Want to compete with Jenny?
btw.. to contribute RE info. Dogs, apartments, and muddy rainy days just don’t go together too well.
“I’ve said for a while inventory sucks and lookie here, the WSJ finally picks up on this meme”
And look what they say:
Instead, real-estate agents say, people are pulling their homes off the market rather than try to sell them at today’s discounted prices.
Remember what I said about prices being too low? Do you still think even lower prices will result in increased volume?
“Instead, real-estate agents say, people are pulling their homes off the market rather than try to sell them at today’s discounted prices.”
First problem is quote is from an agent.
Second problem is there is no need for word discount. Simply todays prices would be more accurate.
Third. Yes I would expect volume to increase if house prices were more logically correlated to incomes.
I agree with Chuk – people are hunkering down for the long haul. The ones that were in trouble are soon going to be flushed out – but the vast majority of people do not NEED to move and are therefore NOT moving. Prices are unlikely to continue to drop – in fact, prices actually might go up for desirable properties in desirable areas (due to the low inventory).
“Third. Yes I would expect volume to increase if house prices were more logically correlated to incomes.”
all else being equal, who is going to be selling those houses, to create the volume, Ze?
people are hunkering down for the long haul.
The rest are rubbing their rabbits foot between their crossed fingers while pickin 4 leaf clovers..
hope and prayer is not a sound investment philosophy
Sounds like it is going to get mighty tough for the starter home buyer… If you have a decent place at a decent price might actually work out well for the starter home seller.
“all else being equal, who is going to be selling those houses, to create the volume, Ze?”
No idea.. seems capitulation is not currently allowed. Eventually one of two outcomes seem inevitable to me. That is one of them. Very weird seeing an asset that is not permitted to be sold. This is the single most dysfunctional market I have ever seen.
btw… this show Breaking Bad… just fantastic. I am up to episode 4 – season 1.
“Third. Yes I would expect volume to increase if house prices were more logically correlated to incomes.”
They already are. What correlation are you looking for?
“btw… this show Breaking Bad… just fantastic. I am up to episode 4 – season 1.”
Yes, best show on TV. Keep watching….
” in fact, prices actually might go up for desirable properties in desirable areas (due to the low inventory).”
well this ‘could’ start to happen any day now, but it hasn’t been happening for a good 4 years now and I don’t see any market signs that things are going to change for another 4 besides hopes and prayers
What many home buyers are seeing is that there aren’t any “deals”. The deals are properties that typically have some significant flaws. Lack of updates. Views of brick walls. No parking. Iffy locations. Short sales. Foreclosures. Bad neighbors. NO CA & W/D. Etc, etc.
The unicorn criteria properties selling at huge discounts seem to be rare. They are like strippers in law school. You hear about them, but no one has ever actually seen one.
If you are willing to put up with the flaws, a DIYer’s, etc there are deals to be had. If you want ready to move in perfect property, the pickings are slim.
” If you want ready to move in perfect property, the pickings are slim.”
but they ARE out there – and if you price your property right, it will likely sell VERY fast.
“They already are. What correlation are you looking for?”
20% down.. 3 times income. Clearly that’s not a hard and fast rule for everwhere. I am of the opinion that’s where general financing should transact.
“20% down.. 3 times income.”
I believe prices are there right now. If you are making 150k combined in Chicago, that would put prices at 450k, with 90k down (360k mort). That will get you a nice property.
cept we’re gonna overshoot on the downside chucky because you’re dual income hypothetical demographic is getting disproportionately impacted by high unemployment.
if you need two incomes to make your valuations work your glasses are rose colored chucky. instead of .91 odds of target demo affording it you now gotta square that.
actually bob, no its not, the low end of the spectrum are the ones hurting from high unemployment
15% unemployed rate for 16-25 year olds with HS deploma or less
25% unemployment for 16-19 year olds
The unemployment rate for College educated folks, you know the ones earning 150k in combined income and buying homes in Chicago is about 4.5%
don’t believe me, look here page 4
http://bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
I mostly agree with Russ but no way do GZ properties with a compromise on one or more criteria hold up in valuations when areas nearby are getting slaughtered.
I don’t even bother to look at “unicorn” criteria props because the pricing is so out of wack vs. compromise props & the supply is infinitesimal.
“cept we’re gonna overshoot on the downside chucky because you’re dual income hypothetical demographic is getting disproportionately impacted by high unemployment.”
Sure, I agree with that. I was just asking gz what he meant by “I would expect volume to increase if house prices were more logically correlated to incomes”, since we are already there IMO.
I’m not questioning where we bottom. I’m questioning where prices “should be” in a healthy market.
“if you need two incomes to make your valuations work your glasses are rose colored chucky. instead of .91 odds of target demo affording it you now gotta square that.”
Well, it’s not “my” valuations. What do you think the calculation should be now for affordable housing? Should someone making 75k a year be able to afford a 4 bedroom house in the burbs in a good neighborhood?
actually I agree with you on a good equilibrium /healthy market. but big city chicagolanders typically levered up more and were at 4x income. now the sins of the past have to be repaid.
Chicago will fare far better than the coasts though.
“I believe prices are there right now. If you are making 150k combined in Chicago, that would put prices at 450k, with 90k down (360k mort). That will get you a nice property.”
The problem with this “scenario” is that no one who makes $150k a year has $90k sitting around. They’re lucky if they have $25k. They would have to save about $2000 a month for 4 years to achieve that big of a downpayment. How many are saving that much? Not many.
The ones I hear about buying with 90k or 100k down who make $150k are those who are getting the money from the bank of mommy and daddy (or, in some cases, other inheritance.)
How much house are the dual incomers buying who have $25k? That’s the real question. Nothing in their “targeted” neighborhoods or inner suburbs. You could buy in Oak Park/Park Ridge for $300k but you’re not getting the stainless, granite and cherry kitchen plus updated baths. Can they live with that?
“The problem with this “scenario” is that no one who makes $150k a year has $90k sitting around.”
Really? If you saved for 5-10 years you should. No one is expecting a 22 yr old to buy a 450k house. But if you are 35 with 2 kids, you should have saved up 90k in cash/equity by then.
“anyone else notice that the Cook county recorder of deeds website is down, and has been down since at least yesterday?”
The website was down the entire weekend. This happens from time to time (usually on the weekends.) It goes down and, obviously, since it’s the government, it’s not like anyone is going to go into the office to fix it until Monday.
Take a typical buyer 10 years ago. Maybe they were 25 and bought a 2/2. They probably don’t have any price appreciation, but they should have some equity in their condo after 10 years. Combine that with their savings, and they are the type of 35 year old couple that would be buying a 450k SFH now.
None that I know Chuk. Not a single one. You know how hard it is to save that much when you are living in a 2/2 for $2500 a month, have one (or two) car payments for $1000 total and have school loans? Then add on vacations, clothing, restaurant eating out, two iPhones, two iPads etc. And I’m not even including saving for retirement.
I’m not saying you couldn’t do it. I’m just saying not many do. Why do you think the NAR is so ballistic over the prospect of 20% downpayments returning? (heck- even on a $150k house)? Because no one can save any money. They don’t know how.
But I agree- that a couple with NO kids and $150k should be able to save it in 5 years. So if they’re 30 when they combine their incomes to get the $150k- they’ll be 35 (and probably have 1 or 2 kids) by the time they’re “ready” to buy the house. If they start saving right now- that will be in 2016 (conservatively speaking.)
“Really? If you saved for 5-10 years you should. No one is expecting a 22 yr old to buy a 450k house. But if you are 35 with 2 kids, you should have saved up 90k in cash/equity by then.”
I doubt it. In instances where they had a substantial downpayment my suspicion is that the majority of these had it from a sale of a prior residence.
House rich and cash poor describes this country the past 15 years or so. Well up until recently when it’s house poor and cash poor.
I don’t know anyone with 90k liquid lying around. It’s just not common.
“I doubt it. In instances where they had a substantial downpayment my suspicion is that the majority of these had it from a sale of a prior residence.”
Sure, what’s wrong with that? That residence is a form of savings (principle payments in mortgage). And with the exception of a few bubble years, that is most likely what most people did. The 2004-2007 buyers are just plain screwed. Nothing will fix them.
“So if they’re 30 when they combine their incomes to get the $150k- they’ll be 35 (and probably have 1 or 2 kids) by the time they’re “ready” to buy the house”
And if I have that much liquid lying around it’s time to start looking at trading in the model of gal for a younger one with less miles on it.
This whole hypothetical demographic chuk is alluding to is hilarious to me. He acts as if these people represent a huge portion of the market, yet in reality they don’t, at all.
Ohh a 150k couple who are both 32 and both work professional jobs. WTF are you smoking chuk where everyone marries their law school sweetheart? LMFAO.
Whose to say the 80k/yr guy doesn’t wind up with a cocktail waitress (common) or the 80k/year gal doesn’t wind up with another gal (common in lakeview haha!)
Your assumed demographic is so narrowly targeted so as to be ridiculous. And assuming they exist in quantity they’re stupid fidos.
“But I agree- that a couple with NO kids and $150k should be able to save it in 5 years. So if they’re 30 when they combine their incomes to get the $150k- they’ll be 35 (and probably have 1 or 2 kids) by the time they’re “ready” to buy the house. If they start saving right now- that will be in 2016 (conservatively speaking.)”
Right. That was a pretty typical scenario among my friends. And that’s how it should be. Have 2 kids before you’re 26? Sorry, not gonna be able to afford that dream home. Get married at 27, live together below your means for 3-5 years with no kids, and you should be in a pretty good position to buy a nice house by 35.
“Maybe they were 25 and bought a 2/2. ”
Maybe they were doing cocaine off a stripper’s tits with triple D’s. Maybe they were studying cosmology or even cosmetology. Point is, maybe that demographic doesn’t exist in quantity or was never really wealthy to begin with.
They call these folks the “aspirational” rich. As in they don’t have the wealth to back up their consumption. It’s all driven by debt and living paycheck to paycheck, with parents to back em up if need be (they never truly grow up). These people are immediately taken out of consumer spending when a little bump comes along (whether that be kid on the way, job loss, etc).
“This whole hypothetical demographic chuk is alluding to is hilarious to me”
Why? This describes about 100% of people that I know. Granted, I am 40 now, so this was 5 years ago for my crowd, but remember, not every single person only purchased at the height of the bubble.
“Get married at 27, live together below your means for 3-5 years with no kids, and you should be in a pretty good position to buy a nice house by 35.”
And then you kiddo has down syndrome because your wifey waited until 35 for all the stars to be aligned right, except the one regarding increased incidence of birth defects/infertility. Your friends are stupid if they planned their life in such a way. No wonder they are financially fvcked now.
“Ohh a 150k couple who are both 32 and both work professional jobs. WTF are you smoking chuk where everyone marries their law school sweetheart? LMFAO.”
Huh? 150k is 2 teachers salaries.
“This describes about 100% of people that I know. Granted, I am 40 now, so this was 5 years ago for my crowd”
Okay it doesn’t sound as ridiculous when viewed in it’s proper context of 2006. But to me these days it seems a bit ridiculous to me. Maybe because making such grandiose life plans sounds facetious to me unless one has gold plated job security (ie: govt work).
“And then you kiddo has down syndrome because your wifey waited until 35 for all the stars to be aligned right”
Ha, 35 is certainly not old to be having a kid. Also, I said married at 27 and wait 3-5 years. That means having your first at 30-32. Pretty typical. Again, this pretty much describes 100% of the people I know.
“Huh? 150k is 2 teachers salaries.”
Not in neighboring states. In bluest of blue IL currently yeah. We’ll see how long that keeps up.
I happen to know a couple that is teachers and I happen to know one of them works two jobs to bring in extra money. They don’t have kids and aren’t in Illinois, but I somewhat doubt 75k is the average teachers salary in IL for an under 35 teacher.
Maybe a teacher nearing retirement who has been there for 30+ for all of those 3% raises. I don’t see teachers buying overpriced Chicago RE, chucky.
“but I somewhat doubt 75k is the average teachers salary in IL for an under 35 teacher.”
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-16/news/ct-met-cps-teachers-0617-20110616_1_teacher-with-five-years-cps-teachers-average-teacher-salary
“In 2009, a teacher with 10 years of experience and a master’s degree earned $74,526. This year, that teacher earned $80,353. If the same teacher went back to school and earned 15 hours of graduate credit, he or she made $82,105.”
Again, I am not talking about how large (or small) the population of people making 150k are. Certainly we can agree that some number of couples make 150k. Those are the people that should be able to afford a 450k house. Don’t make 150k? Guess what, you can’t afford that house. There is a reason why many houses also sell for 300k.
i agree with both you guys. If you set your priorities correctly it just is not that difficult to save a good amount. ZIRP just made it alot harder though. I really am clueless to what people earn…prefer it that way. I would walk down Mich Ave with the wife and always point out the thousand dollar bags and 600 dollar shoes and thousand dollar coats. I just knew that these things shouldn’t be owned by the majority of people. I would tell her either everyone is rich or they are all burying themselves.. And I know it ain’t the former. You want your ipad that will be in the garbage in 3 yrs, the LV bag people assume is fake anyway…..go ahead… I prefered saving.
“Why? This describes about 100% of people that I know. Granted, I am 40 now, so this was 5 years ago for my crowd, but remember, not every single person only purchased at the height of the bubble.”
All we have to do is look around at the $450k house sales and see how much money they put down. Remember all those examples HD provided a few weeks back for the houses in Park Ridge and also in Old Irving Park? Many of them put down $20k! STILL. Even with the tougher mortgage criteria. (I still can’t believe the banks are allowing them to get away with it.)
I think HD saw one house in Park Ridge where the new buyers put down $60k and that was unusual. One of the houses featured here in Old Irving Park had a $25k downpayment. Sold for like $440k.
I’m not arguing that there aren’t some that put down $100k on a $450k house with a $150k salary. But it’s not the norm. That’s why prices will continue to decline. Those people making $150k should really pay $250k to $300k to keep their lifestyles intact, save money for retirement and for college and have some left over for extras. Even with the low mortgage rates- unless they have a huge downpayment- that $450k is out of their price range.
And let’s not talk about how 2 teachers, firemen, police officers could afford it. They’re all being laid off.
I don’t think there are many $150k couples looking to buy in the nicer GZ hoods. I’d venture that there is a group that falls below that mark, and a group that falls above.
For the former, i.e., those who might make a combined $100k max (after two years or so into their careers), I’d bet there has been a major reconsideration of the previously accepted wisdom of buying the 2/2 in Lakeview, SoPo, SL, etc. Many in that group are either happy to remain renting or will simply skip the I-owned-in-the-city phase and move straight out to Naperville, etc. For the latter, i.e., those making a combined $200-300k+ (again, after two years or so), those are the 27-32 year-olds who are buying the unique 2 beds in BT, the big loft in the WL, the TH in RV, the lavishly updated 2 bed in LP, or the full service 2 bed in the GC or Sville (half of that group will move to the most expensive burbs in 2-4 years; a quarter will buy $1 million SFHs next door to anon(tfo); of the remaining quarter who don’t move to NYC, CA, etc., they might buy a long-term family condo or house in LP/LV/GC.
“would walk down Mich Ave with the wife and always point out the thousand dollar bags and 600 dollar shoes and thousand dollar coats. I just knew that these things shouldn’t be owned by the majority of people. I would tell her either everyone is rich or they are all burying themselves.. And I know it ain’t the former. ”
I know a guy that deals in this merch. The chinese factories are running extra shifts and dumping it here. Same purses, just a fraction of the cost. Please don’t assume everyone is actually dropping $500+ for this stuff the vast majority aren’t.
Annony:
Those who are making $100k to $150k will just bypass the north side condo altogether (as you said.) It’s stupid to buy any property that you may only live in 3 to 5 years (as too many people are now finding out.) It IS about the long haul now. That means a townhouse or a house (for most people.) Some are also buying the duplex downs/ups.
Those making $100k to $150k can’t afford anything updated in the interior suburbs. They could buy a fixer (if they’re willing to go for it.) But many buyers want “new”. So they’ll end up in the farther out suburbs (Northbrook, Highland Park, Downers Grove, Naperville etc.) There are tons of deals out there. Many of them are updated. And they have plenty of space so they know they can raise their families.
Those earning $200k to $300k (such a small percentage of the population) will have a plethora of choices. Those aren’t the ones determining this market (whether it rises or falls.) 40% of the market is first time homebuyers. It all hinges on those middle class buyers.
“All we have to do is look around at the $450k house sales and see how much money they put down.”
Why put it down if you don’t have to? With rates at 3-4%, you are wise to put down as little as humanly possible. Even if you can afford the 20% down.
“And let’s not talk about how 2 teachers, firemen, police officers could afford it. They’re all being laid off.”
All? A bit dramatic, no? What % of teachers in IL actually got laid off this year?
Again, forget the occupations, dire predictions, etc. A couple earning 150k should be able to afford a 450k house. Period. If they can’t, they either don’t have their priorities in order, or they made a bad move somewhere along the line.
“And let’s not talk about how 2 teachers, firemen, police officers could afford it. They’re all being laid off.”
Not in IL they’re not. This is still a tax and spend state, Sabrina with the public servants and unionized the patrician caste.
“Illinois’ teaching ranks shrunk by an estimated 2,102 jobs during the 2009-2010 school year, state records show.”
Number of Teachers in Public Schools: There are 135,704 public school teachers in Illinois.
1.5% doesn’t seem like “all” to me.
“With rates at 3-4%, you are wise to put down as little as humanly possible. Even if you can afford the 20% down.”
Really depends on how much you value that liquidity vs. saving a few extra bips on the rate.
Let’s look at a 378k hypothetical SFH purchase, because that covers conventional and FHA financing:
For 10% down APR of 4.123% for 30yr fixed max paydown.
For 20% down APR of 3.864% similar. (this would be higher if a condo)
For 25% down APR of 3.847% for similar.
Warehouse lender I check doesn’t do 30 or 15yr fixeds with FHA.
Approximate interest first year with 10% down: 14k.
Approximate interest first year with 20% down: 11.7k.
Incremental ROR on extra 10% (37.8k) tied up in house: 6.2%, risk free, tax free. Dunno chucky 6.2% looks pretty good for an after tax, risk free ROR these days.
And what are these people using that 37.8k liquidity on? Let’s be honest: nothing as they don’t have it and are stretching to even get to that 10% down.
Should be noted warehouse lender does do ARMs for their new “Super FHA” loans, which is likely what is buoying volume & valuations at the 380k level and below in Chicago.
“Please don’t assume everyone is actually dropping $500+ for this stuff the vast majority aren’t.”
I don’t . I assume they are fake. So spending $1,500 is even sadder.
A few random comments:
1) my pet peeve is principle vs. principal …. ergh… i don’t care if it’s a typo and unintentional…
2) Saving is NOT easy. You have to live a fairly monkish & austere lifestyle. That means rarely going out, driving old cars; having a crappy cheap apartment, never buying starbucks coffee, rarely buying clothes, laundering your own clothes, packing your lunch everyday and trust me, more people are spenders in this consumerist society; and the Fed’s war on savers isn’t helping either. and the most important thing is a higher income. Because you need to live like your friends who make half of what you do because the taxes, the phaseouts and the daycare is going to take a far bigger cut from your income than you think. I don’t even get the child tax credit and my buddy who has a stay at home wife didn’t understand that it gets phased out with higher incomes.
3) $250,000 buys nothing livable for a family in some of the nicer closer burbs. $250,000 will buy you something nice way out there, but if you have two working parents downtown, st. charles is not a realistic option. I still see starter homes, not updated, vacant, mortgage free, moldy, listed for $279,000 because you know, those owners can’t just give their homes away….
“Saving is NOT easy.”
No one said it was easy. But I have the feeling I have roughly described you. 150k HH income, first kid after 30, saved 20% down on a 400k place (and thinking of stretching to 450k). Is that about right?
my grandparents never owned a home… My parents were late late 30’s when they bought their first. Who said saving is easy. Who said everyone is entitled to have the nicer things in life. Come down here and see how the 99percent really live. The near future is going to be one hell of a painful reality for alot of people.
Close. I’m looking in the $300’s, I’d like the middle to upper 200’s. I linked to that park ridge house for $280,000 the other day. They’re out there, but they’re smaller houses usually 1,300 to 1,500 sq ft plus finished basement. But I see better and better deals everyday; and homes that I thought would have sold by now are still languishing.
“Come down here and see how the 99percent really live.”
in favelas but at least the weather is nice and the people are beautiful..
“The near future is going to be one hell of a painful reality for alot of people.”
I think it’s going to be fvcking fantastic and entertaining. A lot of these types that are going to be hardest hit are those that never really faced any sort of real adversity in their life. And their first obstacle is a big one: junior needs a place to goto school and you’re stuck in your McShitBox condo. Deal with it.
Lets not forget about another demographic that is going to be particularly hard hit: baby boomers who were lucky enough to own in gentrifying areas who treated their house as an ATM and spent that appreciation.
They never had a day job to cover their lifestyle, but they had an inflating asset. They’re toast in terms of purchasing power now. And that old house isn’t going to be their retirement nest egg either.