“Great Investment in Any Market”? 2300 N. Commonwealth in Lincoln Park
2300 N. Commonwealth is a 72-unit 2006-2007 Belgravia conversion in Lincoln Park.
This 2-bedroom corner unit recently came on the market.
The listing says it’s a “great investment in any market.”
Is it?
The building is a short stroll to Lincoln Park. The unit has in-unit washer/dryer and heated garage parking. It doesn’t have central air, however.
Keith Weinstein has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #7L: 2 bedrooms, 1 bath, no square footage listed
- Sold in 2006 for $414,000 (included parking)
- Currently listed for $399,000 (parking included)
- Assessments of $353 a month
- Taxes of $5,000
- Living room: 14×14
- Dining room: 8×10
- Kitchen: 10×8
- Bedroom #1: 14×16
- Bedroom #2: 13×12
Hell yeah, anything in LP is worth 30% more now than it was in April 2007.
LOL
“Is it?”
No.
Your link is broke – take out the extra ‘http’.
HAHAHAHAHA
LOL!!!!
Love the kids room with the bunk bed/desk combos… I bet sharing that one bathroom with two rugrats is TONS of fun!
And clearly a 1k sqft place in LP no matter what is worth 400 a sqft!
Great investment! Probably what their realtor told them when they bought it… LOL!
$2500/month mortgage and assessment after 20% down? HA. My friends rent a 2br @ Lake Point Tower for $2400. Granted it doesn’t have granite, SS appliances, or hardwood but they’re on the 34th floor and look out over Navy Pier….
Well I think what is going on here is that they are charging 150k for the parking space 🙂
Realtors really should start losing their licenses for making claims about the potential ROI on any property. It’s always a conflict of interest and it’s a really inappropriate thing to say.
Do these people not surf the Lincoln Park MLS before putting places like this on the market? No central air?
Maybe Benny boy and Turbotax Geithner will save these people? HAHAHA! 260k. Next.
Well hey, if they say it’s a great investment, how could I go wrong?
wow–that’s a Belgravia conversion? I didn’t think they did anything with such cheap finishes.
Or I could get a rehabbed 2BR/2BA in pretty much any LP highrise, equally close to the park, w/ better views, more amenities, etc. for less money!
August 06 = 332,500
8 Months later = Down $30k
3 x 8 months later = ???
I’m not sure what to make of that, but I don’t think +$30k for each 8 months since is the right answer. Even if they *had* upgraded the unit.
Anyone think this would get some looks if they listed at the 06 price?
Wow, what a depressing listing. And in a prior thread some of you said sellers were getting more realistic in 2009. This thing is on a one way ticket south.
What is the deal with the $30k loss taken on the 2007 sale?
“Realtors really should start losing their licenses for making claims about the potential ROI on any property. It’s always a conflict of interest and it’s a really inappropriate thing to say.”
Don’t bring out that bag of crap again… I mentioned something about that on another listing and we got into semantics over what was guaranteeing returns and other garbage like that.
This one’s overpriced (given the single bathroom and the 2007 sale price), that much is clear.
But this location is not comparable to Lake Point Tower, especially if one has a child. Though it is certainly nice to look at from a distance, Navy Pier is a dreadful tourist pit worthy of one or two actual visits per summer at the most; Streeterville, the closest civilization to the building, is barely residential (especially eastern Streeterville). (I just spent two nights there while staying at Prentice – it was almost worse than being in the Loop at night; were it not for Northwestern, it would be far worse.)
Living on (or within one or two blocks of) Lincoln Park (i.e., the actual Park), especially along Lakeview Ave or LPW, is hard to beat (only Astor, State and Dearborn between Division and North compare). Other than the eastern sections of Evanston and the North Shore suburbs, this location (i.e., 2300 Commonwealth and the vicinity) is the nicest place to live in the entire state. Heck, it’s the nicest place to live east of Boulder (CO) and west of the Upper West Side (NY).
Location, location, location…
They’ll either find another idiot or lose a significant amount. I’m hoping they’ll lose a significant amount. Idiots never learn….
These are the kinds of listings that screw up the “market time” data.
anonny:
nice assessement of LP. I give it an 8 on laughability. I was comparing this specific unit in LP to a specific unit at LPT. not the vicinity. And to say that LP is definitively better than Austin, TX, parts of Miami, parts of DC, Savannah, GA, etc is equally laughable. Sure, the north shore, LP, and GC are the most expensive places to live outside Manhattan, but not the nicest…
I also like Lincoln Park a lot (though this listing is awfully overpriced; I would remove the bunk beds; there is no way there is enough room for parents + 2 kids in this condo).
But – is the Lake Point Tower location really that bad? It’s a bit of a walk to Michigan avenue/Dominick’s/Fox and Obel – but entirely doable when the fancy strikes.
Plus, at least for small kids, LPT has two pools, a private park, and the public park space and beach right outside the door. Also super easy access to Lake Shore Dr. When we lived in Streeterville, we often took the walk to the lakefront in the area (though we rarely stopped by Navy Pier).
Actually, a discussion of older buildings like LPT on this site would be great.
Any thoughts on what this place is worth? This seems like a pretty interesting analysis of value given the +’s and -‘s of this place. 285K?
ChiGuy: funny how expense and desirability tend to go hand and hand. Thing is, there is a limited amount of space/properties and when enough people want to live in an area, the increased demand usually means increased prices. Now _you_ may not find LP as desirable as, say, Savannah, GA (BTW, talk about laugh-ability factor…) but many people would disagree. It really is amazing to me how people here can ascribe the prices in desirable neighborhoods COMPLETELY to bubble-think. Sure, there is a bubble, but some of these neighborhoods command a premium for other reasons as well.
None of this is to say I agree with annony’s assessment…there was more than a bit of hyperbole in that post.
But let’s face facts: certain neighborhoods are generally considered more desirable than others and are priced accordingly, with or without a bubble.
On this property: nice location, small place. Plus: no central air? I personally wouldn’t consider over $275K or so, but I’d take a guess that it might move at around $300K.
Unit 2H in this building, a 1/1 with similar room sizes is currently listed for $299K including parking.
Unit 4H, a 1/1 with 811 square feet, “recently sold” for $262K according to Zillow.
The sale of 4H for $262K occurred in April 2008. Not all that “recent”, but still interesting.
JPS, April 2008 still was before the massive collapse. I wouldnt trust any “recently sold” before Nov. 08.
TftInChi,
What is so funny about the bubble is that you had marginal areas following prime areas like LP and LV in terms of $/sf and zooming upwards. For no rhyme or reason other than they had a Chicago address and zip code. Forget that they weren’t as walkable, desirable, etc as Lincoln Park. Its these marginal areas that are going to be hit hardest.
*Sigh*
Sorry to disappoint, but I won’t reciprocate with any ad hominem “laughable” remarks. I will, however, clarify.
“Nicest” place to live = “most desirable” place to live. Are there absolutely fantastic (i.e., the stuff of fantasies) places in Alaska or Tibet or on various remote islands? Of course – very “nice,” much nicer than Lincoln Park. But whether one can also earn a good living, raise a child, check out some art or take in a symphony, and have a wide range of food choices are, among other factors, fairly weighty when considering the “nicest places TO LIVE.”
I’ve been to both Austin and Savannah a couple of times. Austin is no doubt the nicest place to live in Texas. But that’s TEXAS. And Savannah is very nice as well (I lived in Atlanta) and is certainly among the nicest places to live in the South. But that’s THE SOUTH. I have spent a fair amount of time in D.C. and Miami. Ever wonder why anybody who has the choice leaves D.C. for the summer? And Miami…it’s as if God dropped New Jersey on top of Cuba, then proceeded to erect thousands of over-priced condos.
Thanks for the heads up about the broken link. It’s been fixed.
OK Chiguy and annony….time out for both of you!! LOL
I take you word for it that this condo isn’t ‘all that’ regardless of it’s ‘highly desirable’ LP location as my computer will not allow me to enter the site (firewalled for security reasons).
You know, I still can’t understand the desirability and exclusivity some people feel they get from that area. Perhaps I need to be here more than the 8 mos. I have been here.
The area is NOT, repeat NOT “all that” whatsoever. I almost tore out the undercarriage of my car driving down a street in that sacred area last week. Does this priviledged LP location and exclusivity allow for such poor street maintenance? And of course what would LP be without the homeless pushing their shopping carts?
Speaking of Miami…I take it you don’t consider the Coconut Grove area, or a bit further north…take Lake Worth or Palm Beach, as an exclusive area in which to reside.
SoBe was the epitome of location, location, location twenty years ago before greedy developers and realtors jumped on the bandwagon and over built it. Then like any area that is highly desirable, along came “those people” (ala McCain) and it was ruined by crime, drugs and that element. Having lived in SoFl for years (among many other ‘hot’ cities over the years) I know the city and it’s surrounding very well.
As far as the refinement and cultural nature of a city goes, IMHO, Chicago does not compete with other cities that I could, but won’t, name. Miami has some of the most diverse and sought after culinary gems in the country…not to mention it’s overabundance of art, music and the ‘other factors’ that make a city highly desirable.
I am a bit offended by the comment about Cuba being dropped on Miami! While it is true that there is a sizable Cuban community there, so are also representatives of ALL the world’s cultures and ethnic backgrounds spread throughout the city. And got to break it to you, these reps do have them some money!! Anyway….
So, can someone with a deep understanding of Chicago real estate and knowledge PLEASE explain to me why LP is considered the top place to live in this fair city? I don’t understand…*shakes head*
Sabrina, I wish you would not have fixed the link to that site….EEEWWWWW!!!!!
What is with the poor staging of this place? OMG… I cannot believe someone would allow such a poor representation of the property they have for sale to be published. Dirty towels hanging up in the bathroom, on the stove handle (and floor) and what is with that overstuffed LR? I have heard of overstuffed furniture, but rooms???
All that aside, that is one fugly building…LP or not!! Sorry, I will pass it along to someone who wants location location location…
Westloopelo:
1) Your points about Palm Beach and Coconut Grove are well taken; both are extremely nice (I’ve been to the former for vacations and once for a wedding and spent two months near the latter for work) and, were I more of a “beach person” (and rich), they would be top choices as places to live.
2) No offense intended about Cuba; my wife is part Cuban and we have lots of Cuban family and friends (and if we ever normalize relations with Cuba, I’ll eagerly make a trip). If any, the pejorative emphasis was meant to be on the New Jersey part of the image (i.e., “dropping New Jersey on top of Cuba”) (and before those from the Jerz take umbrage, please note that I’m from there!).
3) As for why eastern LP is so great, I guess that’s just in the eye of the beholder:
A) Were you to walk out your door at 2300 Commonwealth (and, based on the presentation of this unit, it would be a huge relief to exit that building), it’s literally just steps to the Park, accessing it between the Conservatory and the Zoo, with the flower garden field in between. That’s a pretty nice stretch of urban dwelling space. Go a bit north, and you can stroll around the North Pond. And if you have kids, there are epic playgrounds within a few blocks of everywhere along the Park. To top it all off, the Park is the gateway to Chicago’s supreme asset: the lakefront. If you run or cycle, immediate access to the lakefront is a highly valuable amenity. Lastly, it bears noting that Lakeview Ave and Lincoln Park West arguably provide a more stately and serene boundary to the Park than does, say, Michigan Ave along Millenium/Grant Park (which is also a world class asset for Chicago and a great place to spend time; when it comes to full-time living, given Mich Ave’s 8 lane super highway, clogged with dozens of buses at a time and thousands of tourists roaming the sidewalks…well, for my weekday mornings/evenings and weekends spent outside of the Loop, eastern LP takes the cake).
B) Granted, there are homeless and potholes in east LP, but those are aspects of life in every urban area. But if one lived in any other neighborhood in Chicago, would the outdoor amenities compare
B) Granted, there are homeless and potholes in east LP, but those are aspects of life in every urban area. But if one lived in any other neighborhood in Chicago, would the outdoor amenities compare to those described above in (3)(A)?
“Paulie Herman [Joe Piscopo]: I’m from Jersey! Ha!,ha!,ha!,ha! Are you from Jersey? Ha!,ha!, ha!,ha! I’m from Jersey!”
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/80/80dpaulie.phtml
Plainfield, NJ
“So, can someone with a deep understanding of Chicago real estate and knowledge PLEASE explain to me why LP is considered the top place to live in this fair city?”
Amongst my peers, Lincoln Park and Wrigleyville are both equally ridiculed as high density frat boy and sorority girl areas – totally undiverse. Understandably desirable to recent college grads but hardly the “top place” for other demographics. In terms of real estate, it is a solid area, of course.
“As far as the refinement and cultural nature of a city goes, IMHO, Chicago does not compete with other cities that I could, but won’t, name.”
Please do name some cities. One of my favorite articles is put out by Money Magazine, top places to retire and top places to live. They call attention to cities most people have never been to.
[Editor deleted this comment]
Editor’s Note: Please keep the comments to the property itself. Thank you.
“Miami has some of the most diverse and sought after culinary gems in the country”
Uh, not to get into a city tit-for-tat, but so does Chicago. Chicago compares favorably with any place in the new world for overall restaurant “culture”. Maybe Chicago’s strengths don’t match your preferences, but the same can be said about every city (including NYC, which does have gaps in their restaurant superiority).
“overabundance of … music”
Miami’s music scene may be bumpin’, but it ain’t everyone’s thing (and much the same for the “art” scene–not terribly accesible). I think describing it as “overabundance” is about right–(could you turn it down, please?)–there isn’t a SoFla radio station I’d listen to. So that’s even more than the culinary scene a matter of taste, rather than an objective “better”.
Trying to keep it RE related, along with the diversity of food, art and culture of Miami, there is also a very diverse style of architecture there as well. From Mizner to Starck to Lapidus and the giants of the Deco era, the range of housing is so diverse that it makes it a very interesting place to live.
Just like nearly every other market in the country, once this RE situation becomes stable once again (and it will) I think that area will go through yet another ‘rebirth’ and will offer yet more in the way of the topics mentioned above.
That is what makes Miami so desirable to a certain segment of our country…it’s ability to change and to keep itself current. Whereas Chicago has (with few exceptions) stayed in the same style that I witnessed on my first visit nearly 30 years ago. LP was king then and it remains so now…with the same now tired buildings!
What it all boils down to (and you briefly touched on it) it that what ‘blows one’s skirt up may not do the same to another’s skirt’. Or different strokes for different folks.
BTW, keep the Uh’s and let’s just keep the back and forths civil.
As a sidenote, I am now a resident of Chicago and will be for years to come. While I may be holding it’s true assets at arm’s length now I am sure I will warm up (to an extent) over time. If I did not feel this way I would not be investing in the RE market at the rate I am now (two properties bought, two or three more to go…and enough rehab work to keep me busy for a few years!)
In the end though, I do admit Chicago does have it going on architecturally and otherwise, it is just not at the same level as other cities.
MADFLY:
“Amongst my peers, Lincoln Park and Wrigleyville are both equally ridiculed as high density frat boy and sorority girl areas – totally undiverse. Understandably desirable to recent college grads but hardly the “top place” for other demographics. In terms of real estate, it is a solid area, of course.”
Undiverse is I guess what gets me about this area. In my past residences that to me is what made the city or area. To me the aging buildinga just don’t cut it when faced with, say Lakeside East.
I wonder how long the area will remain solid as every group is feeling the pinch these days. I am in no way knocking LP, I just do not understand the draw (or the prices for less than idea RE offerings).
“it is just not at the same level as other cities”
Okay, keeping it civil, please tell us which ones.
New York, fair enough. I’ll give you EsEff, too. Maybe Miami, for certain folks (not me, for *lots* of reasons), and LA, in a certain, not-very-urban sense.
But the most commonly cited non-US cities aren’t fair, b/c Chicago is no doubt a 2d-tier global city, being neither the political, financial nor entertainment capital of the country–thus absolute comparisons to London, Paris, Tokyo are unreasonable both directions (tho our skyline is better than any of them, save HK, which benefits greatly from having terrain). And if you compare to Nordic cities, it’s more about a cultural shift than about the city itself.
And much smaller cities (Boulder, suggested by someone-you?) are also entirely different. Sure, Boulder might be a nicer place to live for many (many, many) reasons, but comparing it to Chicago is, again, unfair both directions. Comparisons to Denver, sure. But Boulder and Chicago are more different than apples and oranges.
For $400,000, I would like a second bathroom. I find the building’s facade depressing, but the upper $300,000’s might be appropriate if it had a second bathroom and also central air.
What started out as comparing locations within Chicago has turned into a ‘my city is better than your city’ competition.
BTW, I think that when Lakeside East is completed, it will be the ‘new LP’ in terms of desirability and exclusivity. Remember, AQUA has only a few units left before being sold out (and having visited the sales office, they will never sell) and a ‘hold/no more showings’ status being placed on those fantastic townhomes. So the whole LP being the only location, lc, lc debate now has other players in it.
But getting back to city vs city, excluding any foreign cities and the fact that you have narrowed it down to only certain cities that are acceptable for comparison based on size alone, it is hard to answer your question.
I also notice a hometown pride present on this forum that leads me to realize the fact that no matter what area I do name, it’s strong merits will be shot down in a minute.
But just for the sake of argument and to get many a BP arisin’, how about considering Cherry Creek in Denver (parks galore, shopping and restaurants to rival NYC, Botantical Gardens, valuable and outstanding architecture, both old and new) Santa Fe, Scottsdale, San Diego, SF, Hyde Park in Tampa, the Garden District in NO, as was mentioned portions of DC, portions of Boston, Brooklyn is rising fast, City Center of Philly, but to name a few.
Look, I am not at all down on Chicago, but when you speak to Americans who are well traveled and who personally know the country very well, sadly Chicago does not have that great a reputation.
When the topics of the ‘bad element’ in Chicago surface, ie. the corrupt politicians, gang related violence and crime rate (that is often brought up on this forum when comparing properties), the climate, it being in the Midwest (had to throw that in there as in a previous post TEXAS and THE SOUTH were negatively portrayed) the desire to reside here diminishes.
Throw in the common fact that the RE market shows properties losing up to 60% of their value, all of those things together unfairly (yes, I said it, unfairly) disqualifies it as a highly desirable city in which to live.
And to address another comment on this topic:
“Sure, the north shore, LP, and GC are the most expensive places to live outside Manhattan, but not the nicest…”
Well, the last part is true, but there are MANY other parts of other American cities that by far surpass the RE prices that are charged in the NS, LP and the GC.
Sorry native Chicagoans, but these facts are true!
Regardless, I dismissed these issues, as many other new residents have, to live here. And no matter how much time it may take, I will come back to that thought I had as a kid when I told myself “this is the city that I will live in some day and I will love it.”
St Patty’s day was my first step in getting back to that thought!!
Chicago is Mecca for the Midwest. There is a pretty big demand from younger people heralding from St. Louis, Milwaukee, Mpls/St Paul, KC, Indy, etc as well as from kids that grew up in rural areas across the Midwest to move to Chicago.
I can’t say I’ve heard people excited about moving to Philly, NO, DC or Tampa.
West:
Every sale and purchase has a different story. Our sellers were divorced although we didn’t know it at the time. As for us, we live in Madison, great SMALL city. It has nothing like the opportunities that Chicago offers. It is a 2 hour plus easy drive. We cannot realistically get to those places you mentioned as quickly or cheaply.
We bought a weekend place in River North and love that neighborhood. OTOH, we have weekend people in our condo building in Madison from Minneapolis and very the very far outskirts of Chicago who have bought weekend places in our condo building. Two of the buyers are a gay couple who feel much more at ease in Madison than in Illinois.
Every sale and purchase has a different story to tell.
Need to edit better.
Native Chicagoan’s don’t really live in LP anymore. And it didn’t really have the best Victorian architecture either, but that’s mostly gone now (it was on the South and West sides and closer in to the loop, i.e. River North etc), just workers flats. We do have the range of architectural styles, you just have to know where to look, since the local vernacular is strong (and still going in the south ‘burbs).
“these facts are true!”
Still don’t see any facts, just opinions and perceptions. Everyplace has it’s plusses and minuses, and, yeah, had I no need to work, Chicago wouldn’t be where I lived.
But then neither would be Denver, Santa Fe, Scottsdale, San Diego, Tampa, NO (seriously? a “better” place than Chicago?), DC, Boston, Brooklyn or Philly. Perhaps SF. More likely Portland; perhaps Seattle. You’re expressing a POV as “fact”, when it’s a ridiculously subjective analysis.
“Americans who … personally know the country very well”
“being in the Midwest … the desire to reside here diminishes”.
Yeah, real sophisticates, these people. The midwest is flyover land, full of rubes. Great “facts”.
OK anon, if you care to go to the trouble of quoting me, please don’t do so out of context.
“these facts are true!” – refers to the comment that LP, the NS and the GC are the MOST expensive areas in the country.
That of course is not true whatsoever and shows a person’s incorrect view of the RE market only…I should add a person who probably has not traveled too far from Chicago and believes everything he/she reads in travel mags.
And yes, of course it is a POV, but isn’t what this entire forum about?
“Ridiculously subjective analysis”…whoa! who are you all of the sudden? LOL!!
Again, my comments out of context – you neglected to include the portion of my statement “Hyde Park” section of Tampa…as it seemed the debate/conversation had turned to sections of a city…LP, GC. NS, etc.
Again, I was conveying the conversations of a very diverse group of people in the RE industry whom I come in contact with on a daily basis and their ‘subjective analysis’ of Chicago…well, sorry but it is not a good one.
Oh, why am I attemtping to make some sense of your warped reading comprehension? Waste of time it is…But then, you did prove your own point of sophisticated midwesterners being ‘rubes’. Thanks
““these facts are true!” – refers to the comment that LP, the NS and the GC are the MOST expensive areas in the country.”
If you say so. Your odd paragraphing (thank you for trying–much easier read with some space, despite this miscommunication) makes some of your points unclear.
But yes, it is definitely true that LP, the NS and the GC are **NOT** the MOST expensive areas outside Manhattan. However, determining what areas are “most expensive” depends on how narrowly you draw the boundaries of your “expensive areas” and how you define expensive (sales price? per sqft?).
Forbes list (easiest to access; zip code based; dreadfully flawed) shows that in ’07 (it’s the “2008” list), there wasn’t a Manhattan zip code in the top ten and only Kenilworth and Winnetka rep’ing IL in the top 175, and only 4 more in the top 500 (6 total). Individually, LA had 15, SF 19 and Manhattan had 28 zips in the top 500. Hell, Santa Monica (population 90k) had 4 top 500 zips; LA County (pop ~10mm; Illinois almost 13mm) as a whole had 57 top 500 zips. But does that mean that LA County is the most desireable spot in the country? Not if you asked me–it’s near the bottom of my list of acceptable places, and I think horribly, horribly overpriced for housing, still.
“I was conveying the conversations of a very diverse group of people in the RE industry whom I come in contact with on a daily basis and their ’subjective analysis’ of Chicago”
Again, unclear. You said “when you speak to Americans who are well traveled and who personally know the country very well”, which implies any of us who know such people will get the same reaction. Not my experience, but then my friends aren’t experienced RE industry pros, despite being well-traveled and knowing the country well.
“make some sense of your warped reading comprehension”
Maybe if your points were easier to follow, we yokels could understand. Gotta communicate *to* your audience. (I’m kidding about the rubes thing, so don’t take it the wrong way).
westloopelo –
Comparing cities is difficult – how do you trade off climate, jobs, culture, activities, restaurants, architecture, housing, cost, etc? But I think I have to respond so some of your “facts”.
First, Miami RE and almost every city in Cali, cities that you cited as highly desirable, have declined much more than Chicago, so it’s a faulty reason to disqualify it. Second, the FACT that Chicago is the 3rd most populous city in the US (second if you don’t count LA, which is more of a collection of suburbs and counts more than double the area as the “city”), means that it is highly desirable. Sure, some people have to move to Chicago for a job, but the overwhelming majority of people have mutliples choices for cities/jobs.
“Throw in the common fact that the RE market shows properties losing up to 60% of their value, all of those things together unfairly (yes, I said it, unfairly) disqualifies it as a highly desirable city in which to live.”
westloopelo –
BTW, you are the first person I have ever heard say that Miami architecture is superior to Chicago’s. Without much looking (I’m sure I could find 100 more examples), the first 2 surveys I found a CNN poll, put Chicago 3rd and Miami 16th out of the 25 largest cities – yeah, bottom half. The second one was an architectural firm that put Chicago #1 and Miami didn’t even make the top 10 rankings.
http://www.infoplease.com/us/cities/best-architecture.html
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/jun2008/id20080625_902330.htm
Anon – I surrender on the point you made re my method of communicating with a keyboard. This is basically how I think when I have 4 or 5 things going on, yet still have interest in reading on commenting on this forum.
Your points are duly noted and in future posts, I will attempt to exercise greater writing skills and will focus my attention to only one thing at a time!
Fullhouse – I agree, every city/area within a city has it’s merits and weak points. I did not intend to make this a tit for tat, city by city comparison, but rather was only commenting on posts made prior.
Re Miami, if you look at my post (3/24 @ 9:39) I mentioned the status of Miami’s RE market and hoped for it’s comeback. Believe me, with the RE stakes I have in that city, I, more than anyone, hope it rebounds!! I agree, the city was overbuilt with greed, then suddenly the bottom fell out and it crashed.
You really do have to take all my comments and consider them when making a comeback comment. I think I launched into it’s merits not with the current RE crisis in mind, but rather I was emphasizing the cultural highlights that fantastic city has.
No matter how bad the RE situation is there, it still will retain the assets that make it a desirable city. All of that diverse cultural influence will not be going anywhere – this is what makes it so favorable, IMHO, than Chicago.
Your statement that Chicago is the 3rd most populous city and say that LA is merely a collection of suburbs…is that not true of Chicago as well? Have you compared the populations of Chicago proper and LA proper?
As far as people having multiple choices for cities and jobs, while that statement may have been true in the past, it is not a fact today when thousands of people are forced to take whatever they can find, wherever they can find it.
In the end though, as I said above, I have made Chicago my home by choice. I could have gone to any other major metro area and invested my assets in the RE market. But based on the many prior visits, I decided this is where I would pitch my tent and hang out for a spell. It may take a few years to fully appreciate Chicago and all it has to offer… and I probably will go on to the next city totally defending this great city.
All that said, I still do not see what is so fantastic that most of the posters here wet their pants when speaking of Lincoln Park! The traffic, the noise, the bikes, the disjointed neighborhoods…all in the name of love for a body of water! And I am still waiting for an explanation of WHY that area is so sacred?? Anyone??
“As far as people having multiple choices for cities and jobs, while that statement may have been true in the past, it is not a fact today when thousands of people are forced to take whatever they can find, wherever they can find it.”
I think the correct figure is millions, not thousands.
I am surprsed that knowledge of this fact doesn’t make you slightly less bullish on RE. The ball and chain of ownership will be a hard lesson to forget for the “transient” workers that make up much of the demand for housing in desirable urban areas.
WL:
1. “how I think when I have 4 or 5 things going on, yet still have interest in reading on commenting on this forum.”
Hey, it’s a comment thread on the tubez, no need to be more focsed, but it’s not fair to jump on others for missing your point if your point is fuzzy.
2. Also, it occurred to me last evening that from a particular perspective, your RE Pro friends are definitely correct–the high-end pied-a-tierre market, which seems to be the theory behind a lot of Chicago development in the last ~5 years. For a second home (as opposed to empty nester locals), Chicago is defintely behind most of your list (I’d say Philly and Boston are equals, appealing mainly to those with local connections and DC is similar, but different b/c it draws those with federal “business” interests more). If I have a $2mm budget for a “playhouse”, I’m not spending it in Chicago without a reason besides “Chicago” (e.g. kids, g.kids, business, mistress), while each of your other “better” places could stand alone (except as noted above).
But I think of it as a place to live and raise a family as a top-quintile (but not top 1%) earner, and that’s an entirely different analysis and why I’ve taken issue with your general point. If your point was more the former, then I do agree.
3. As to the desirabilty of LP:
I think it’s 1) transit access/proximity to DT/LSD, 2) herd mentality–“people like me” live there, 3) (a little bit, w/r/t SFHs) neighborhood schools and proximity to Parker and Latin, 4) relative distance from public housing circa 1980, 5) park proximity (which also helps the UES and UWS w/r/t Central Park), 6) what it was being compared to. Think back to (or imagine based on what you know) what the near north side, west loop and south loop were like in the 80s when LP was ascendant–all either skid rows, derilict industrial areas, “too close” to public housing or all three. Think about areas north (except right along the lake), norhtwest and west–all either barely mariginal or ethnic enclaves. Roscoe Village (as a for example) was a gang infested dump in the 70s into the early 80s until after the conversion of the Pencil Factory Lofts, and only slowly got better. And once a neighborhood gets entrenched as the “good” ‘hood, it takes something significant to break that (usually, the ascendence of a legitiamte replacement–which hasn’t yet happened here). I get it, but it’s not for me (unless I could trade my house for one of the de-lux new 5-6 BR SFHs–and even then, maybe not).
I don’t think population can be used as a measurement of desirability. A large area with high density corresponds to high population. Cairo, for example, has 16M people in it. But is it more desirable than say, Beverly Hills, with 35,000 people?
Price would seem to be the more logical measurement.
Yes, you are correct that the figure is millions NATIONWIDE, but I was referring to here in Chicago…let’s hope it does not reach millions here before it is all over.
The ball and chain that you mention is what I call a very comfortable retirement years from now. I am fortunate, VERY fortunate to be in a position where I can buy, renovate, rent and sit on the property for years before I think I MUST sell to stay afloat.
For me to be able to provide decent (and very nice) rental homes at decent prices for those ‘transient’ workers in decent urban areas, is very financially rewarding and also a fulfilling career as well.
“I think the correct figure is millions, not thousands.
I am surprsed that knowledge of this fact doesn’t make you slightly less bullish on RE. The ball and chain of ownership will be a hard lesson to forget for the “transient” workers that make up much of the demand for housing in desirable urban areas.”
Anon – Finally a logical and understandable reason why LP is THE place to live here in Chicago. This is all I was asking before this whole mess of a city vs city debate started!
THANK YOU!!
Re my being focused…I thank God I don’t have kids! Cyber or not, I should be more aware of what I am doind/saying or typing.
westloopelo –
I’m not trying to use the argument that b/c Miami RE crashed it’s not highly desirable – you tried to use that argument for Chicago, though, then say Miami was still highly desirable… all I was saying was that your argument was faulty.
Chicago proper is 3M compared to LA proper 4M, but LA proper is over twice the area of Chicago, and I have never been to a large city that feels less like a city than LA.
I thought about bringing up the counterpoint that a lot of people don’t have multiple (or any) choices now, but figured it was a temporary thing that hasn’t had an influence until recently, and hasn’t had time to cause any major shift in population. However, I assumed everyone else would realize this, too, therefore not argue this point.
MADFLY –
Yeah, I thought about price being a better proxy for how much people want to live somewhere (desirability), but decided it’s probably some combination of price and population – I think in the end, if not many people aren’t choosing somewhere it indicate that it is less desirable – all else equal. But, even if just price was the best proxy, Chicago is still the most expensive city in the Midwest, and pretty much on par with every other city in the US, other than cities in Cali and Hawaii, and Manhattan.
I understand that this argument doesn’t hold for which city is “nicer” (but that is very subjective), more of a measure of desirability.
BTW, I don’t think is fair to compare foreign cities. In many countries, people pretty much don’t have a choice of which city to live/work in. Most of Chicago’s industries are not remotely exclusive to Chicago.
“I don’t think population can be used as a measurement of desirability. A large area with high density corresponds to high population. Cairo, for example, has 16M people in it. But is it more desirable than say, Beverly Hills, with 35,000 people?
Price would seem to be the more logical measurement.”
OMG I am out of this conversation as no one understands what I am saying, takes my words and spins them to make an argument or …just forgot to take their meds today!!
Fullhouse, no where did I say that Chicago was undesirable because it crashed!! WTH are you rambling about??
“Throw in the common fact that the RE market shows properties losing up to 60% of their value, all of those things together unfairly (yes, I said it, unfairly) disqualifies it as a highly desirable city in which to live. “
Heed your own advice…
“BTW, keep the Uh’s and let’s just keep the back and forths civil.”
“just forgot to take their meds today!!”
I’m so glad I was able to locate this listing to clarify a huge mistake. The re-listing agent on 7L (the home in question) was actually mis-represented as 7F. 7F did indeed sell for $332,000 as a one bedroom home ($300,000) with parking @ $32,000. This was my first sale of 72. My name is Erin Mandel. I am currently representing Belgravia Group’s Quincy Community. I did however, represent every sale @ Commonwealth.
2300 Commonwealth sold in exactly one year and all current re-sales appraised out for higher than its original sales price (I keep tabs on my past transactions). 7L sold in 2006 for $374,000. There is plenty of appreciation.
Lastly, a word about the space. This is a second home. Enough talk about the second bedroom not being large enough for the children. Any additional questions regarding Commonwealth, Belgravia or our pricing strategy can be directed to me @ erinm@belgraivagroup.com.
Erin, a few questions:
Why do you say parking was extra when it appears to be deeded with the unit, with no unique PIN number to sell seperately?
Public records show 7F sold for $332,500 in 8/06 and $302,500 in 4/07, as Sabrina noted above. You add that “all current re-sales appraised out for higher than its original sales price.” Does this mean you feel this owner sold for less than market value in 4/07?
Public records show 7L sold in 4/06 for $414,000 (deed 0612305144.) Do you know why that is, when you say it sold for $374,000? Your comment is not very clear as to whether this is the unit now for sale for $399,000 identified by Sabrina and the listing agent as 7F. If it is, how would that represent “plenty of appreciation?”
“Your comment is not very clear …”
I was wondering if I was just begin dense.
Hi G,
I’m going to chime in, I live at 2300 Commonwealth, I know Erin and I also have an intimate knowledge of the building so I think I can answer your questions.
Let’s start with 7F: The unit originally sold for $300,000 plus parking for $32,500 – $332,500. The parking spaces are not separately deeded, they are a limited common element giving the owner exclusive use. Now don’t ask me specifically how, but the owner of 7F (who lives in the neighborhood and wanted to retain the indoor, heated parking space) was able to bifurcate the space from the unit and sold the unit separately, essentially at his cost of $302,500.
7L: Unit originally sold for $374,000 plus parking for $30,000. So to answer the lingering question: yes, it is being listed for less than what was paid in 2006 – 414k down to 400k. But, let’s keep this in perspective, the unit is listed for only 3.5% less than what it was purchased for two years ago, meanwhile the Dow has lost ~40%. Anyway, the seller is my neighbor – I wish him the best of luck.
Lastly, the boast “Great Investment in Any Market” can certainly be scrutinized. But let’s remember that “Investment,” as Mr. Buffet would like us to define it, must be long term (versus speculating on the short term). Lincoln Park, whether you love it or hate it, still has one thing going for it: Location, and in real estate that certainly can’t hurt your investment.
J
I’m still confused.
Only 7F is on the market. NOT 7L.
I thought Erin was saying that 7F’s sales price was inaccurate in the public records and that it should really be $374,000.
The question is: what did 7F, the 2 bedroom, 1 bath unit currently on the market, originally sell for?
Or are you saying that 7F should really be 7L (and that the listing agent has the unit number incorrect.) So- if that’s the case and it sold for $414k, then yes, the seller is taking a loss.
But is it “only” 3.5%?
The unit hasn’t sold yet- so you can’t go off the list price.
The seller has to pay the new Chicago sales tax which is at least 1% of the sales price.
The seller has to pay the agent fees.
The seller has to pay closing costs.
Seems to me the “loss” is going to be a lot more than 3.5%.
Sabrina,
The listing is incorrect, 7L is on the market and is a 2bed/1bath. 7F is a 1/1.
You are correct, they are listing the unit for less than it was purchased in 2006.
Obviously fees and closing costs are a part of every sale. When the current owner bought the unit, the seller paid those fees so if you want to play that game you might as well subtract those original costs from the buyer’s original basis. i.e. I don’t think it’s fair to attribute those costs to only this particular transaction to support the emphasis on the seller’s haircut.
I agree, let’s wait and see what happens when it sells, as a resident, I’m obviously pulling for a quick sale at list!
J
from J:
“Obviously fees and closing costs are a part of every sale. When the current owner bought the unit, the seller paid those fees so if you want to play that game you might as well subtract those original costs from the buyer’s original basis. ”
Huh??? I don’t get it.
From the current owners perspective there are XXX dollars that were put into this “investment”. From an investment perspective, the detail of what those XXX dollars paid for doesn’t matter when considering return on investment. When this owner sells the property, they will get YYY dollars in return (after all fees). Bottom line, what the previous owner paid in fees is not relevant to the current owners return on investment.
Okay- so that mess is cleared up. Thanks for the info J.
I’ve changed the post to reflect that it’s really Unit #4L and that it previously sold for $414,000 in 2006 (not in the low $300,000s.)
I’ll be watching this one to see where things shake out.
“Okay- so that mess is cleared up. … it previously sold for $414,000”
“7L: Unit originally sold for $374,000 plus parking for $30,000.”
374 + 30 = 404, was the way I learned it, but maybe *this time* it’s just me. Maybe it’s the “new math”.
Erin wrote: “2300 Commonwealth sold in exactly one year and all current re-sales appraised out for higher than its original sales price (I keep tabs on my past transactions). 7L sold in 2006 for $374,000. There is plenty of appreciation.”
Erin, would you care to confirm the above in light of data presented that conflicts with your tab-keeping?
J wrote: “But, let’s keep this in perspective, the unit is listed for only 3.5% less than what it was purchased for two years ago, meanwhile the Dow has lost ~40%.”
Sabrina and netdsgnr have correctly pointed out some errors in this “thinking.” There is another: leverage. The typical equity investor uses no leverage. Not true for RE. Take this unit, for example. Public records indicate that the down payment was $57,750. The property is listed at a 3.6% loss, closing costs will add an additional 5% minimum, and we won’t even get into what discount to ask it will eventually (?) sell for. Oh yeah, no deduction for the loss to vacancy or rental equivalent, either.
So, that’s an approx 8.6% haircut at full ask, minimum, which represents a $35,604 loss against an investment of $57,750.
That ~40% loss on the Dow doesn’t look so bad compared to this ~60% potential loss. But, maybe that’s just me?
The price was just reduced on this unit by $29,000.
Current asking price is now $370,000 or $44,000 under the 2006 sales price.
When are you guys going to learn that all conversions are losses if sold in the first 10 years. They are bad investments. No reason to highlight them as it is a given that these people made mistakes.
Who said this a long long time ago?
G, technical point, but equity investors don’t always feel the need to use leverage because the corporations in which they take the residual interest are levered themselves…