Gut Rehabbed Vintage Greystone Reduced $46K: 3816 N. Fremont in Lakeview
We last chattered about this 3-bedroom vintage duplex down at 3816 N. Fremont in Lakeview in July 2008.
At the time, the sellers were trying to sell after owning the property less than a year.
It’s now been on and off the market for nearly a year. It was recently re-listed and has now been reduced $46,000 since February 2008.
See the pictures and our chatter here.
Here’s the history again:
Unit #1: 3 bedrooms, 3 baths
- Sold in June 2007 for $717,500
- Originally listed in February 2008 for $775,000
- Reduced several times
- Was listed in July 2008 for $738,900 (parking included)
- Reduced
- Currently listed at $729,000 (parking included)
- Assessments of $154 a month
- Taxes are “new”
- Joe Green at Coldwell Banker has the listing. See the listing and the pictures here.
At least that price is surrendering any appreciation since June 2007 since I’m sure they’d accept something only $10k under list (and they’d probably take an offer even less than that).
Of course that still leaves open the question of if they should have to take a bigger hit for buying at that price in 2007. Anybody know anything else about the sales history?
Who cares how much of a hit they “should have” to take. Statements like that are just being petty. The truth is they grossly overpaid for a duplex. Now they are stuck here or this is going back to the bank.
The days of three quarter million dollar units in duplexes are over. You can get a nice penthouse downtown for that. Why anyone would buy half a greystone for 720k never made sense to me. And they still think they are going to get some sort of gain.
No, for this to move they are going to have to bring a lot of money to the table. Money I doubt they have.
Duplex up, MAYBE they’d have a chance at $700K. But when half the living space is below grade? $500K tops.
“Why anyone would buy half a greystone”
There are FOUR (4!!) units in the building, which emphasizes your point. They sold as follows:
#1–$717.5k, June ’07
#2–$549k, April ’07
#3–$525k, Feb ’08
#4–$632k, March ’07
off subject:
Does anyone know what is going on with 55 E. Monroe? The closings are delayed, way delayed.
From what I heard, there was a delay in getting the windows shipped in from China last year.
Anyone else know anything?
A few rentals (with pictures) have started appearing on the MLS so closings must be happening imminently.
2 Lincoln Park closings yesterday –
1110 w Montana
Purchase Price $176,000 (2000)
Sodl Price $227k (Jan 2009)
1872 N Clybourn
Purchase price $539,000 (2005)
Sold Price $570k (Jan 2009)
I don’t understand how these guys are still making money on their sales when you consider the times. Any ideas? I keep hearing about how anyone who owns real estate is underwater and can’t sell their property?
Oh Steve Heitman – WIth transaction costs you call these two winners and great investments? Fortunately for them they got out OK. Others are nowhere near that fortunate. This real estate downturn has legs and we’ll be in this tango for years to come. Residential real estate can not be expected to appreciate in value like an “investment” … the most you should strive for is a return based on rents, not resale. To do otherwise is foolish.
Oh John – Take alook at the montana unit. Looks like a 3% return over 9 years, or just about the inflation rate.
The montana buyer probably put down $14k (20%) back in 2000 and received around $214k as a net sales price. Looks like she received about a 350% return on her $14k investment. Is that bad?
Do you know another place where you could receive 3 times your investment in 9 years? Wow! LOL
Not sure about the Clybourn unit but the Montana unit selling above its 2000 price is not at all surprising. Even according to the CS index we’re still 40% above 2000 prices. Also this is an affordable 1/1 in a nice area. Not the stupid 300k+ 1/1’s we see all the time over at yochicago.
Compared this Montana unit with the 1/1 in ghetto Uptown featured here where they want 150k. I’d pay a 75k premium any day to live in better building and much better neighborhood. Its not even close.
“The montana buyer probably put down $14k (20%) back in 2000”
20% down would have been $35.2K, not $14K
Oh yeah. I meant 5% – 10% down payment. Typical for this type of unit.
Were there any improvements made to justify a higher price on the Clybourn and Montana units?
Steve said: “Do you know another place where you could receive 3 times your investment in 9 years? Wow! LOL”
Sure. Gold has more than tripled. In only 8 years.
So I guess the best investments over the past 10 years were real estate and gold. From Sabrina herself…
Silly rabbit, houses aren’t investments! They’re places to live.
Housing is a place to live HD. Owning a home is an investment! when it is a long term investment it always pays off….
you remind me of this gold bug on a particular housing site I occasionally visit. Except that instead worshiping a shiny glittery metal you worship real estate in a 5 square mile area called Lincoln Park. The Steven Heitman character/persona/facade is so utterly absurd he cannot be real. To be honest it’s absolutely hilarious. I just wish you weren’t such an a$$ and so condescending and insulting b/c you, whoever you are, might actually be a halfway decent guy to have a couple drinks with.
“#Steve Heitman on January 31st, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Housing is a place to live HD. Owning a home is an investment! when it is a long term investment it always pays off….”
BTW not to out StevO but I think I know who he is. Hey Stevo do you have one kid with another in the oven right now?
Do you refinance recently to save a few hundred a month? 😉
Don’t worry StevO you’re identity is safe with me. But if you are who I think you are you are indeed living near the economic edge as many on here predict.
90% LTV StevO with 2 morgages…really? Yeah I’d hope RE turns a corner, too.
Your identity is safe with me if I am on point. I don’t want to scare you off as I look forward to your future interactions in the future. We need a few bulls on here to keep the bears egos in check 😉
I have 2 kins (7th, 5th grades). I don’t have 2 mortgages and don’t have another on the way. Nice try though…
Don’t out people it ain’t cool.
Steve said: “Do you know another place where you could receive 3 times your investment in 9 years? Wow! LOL”
Investments go both ways. If it can triple for 9 years, it sure can tumble down 3 times in 9 years. It is the nature of the beast.
Steve,
The sales dont mean anything without a proper analysis. You’re not sure if improvements were made, and you’re not even sure if there were any buyer incentives (buying pts, furniture, etc). You’re going to need a lot more than just the sales price to support your “beliefs”…
AD – So should we assume that the national data that shows housing declines as not accurate as well? Maybe there people all sold to relatives at less than fmv. Maybe they took all the finishes out and sold the units down to the studs. Thanks AD, I had a feeling that data was wrong.
Anyone buying in 2000 and selling now has held their property through the biggest real estate boom in history. Even with the subsequent bust, they should be able to get out with some gain. This is not a surprise. The 2005 buyer was lucky to have sold for enough to cover their realtor fees and pay off the loan. They definitely did not make anything on that “investment”. Then again, they probably put no money down since that was typical for 2005. If they did put down a substantial amount, they got hosed.
More to the point, how many people who bought within the last 3 years will be unloading their homes for a profit in 5 years, or even 10 years? I’d bet very few.
Like they say in the mutual fund business, past performance is no guarantee of future results.
“The montana buyer probably put down $14k (20%) back in 2000”
“Oh yeah. I meant 5% – 10% down payment. Typical for this type of unit.”
So that’s your response everytime your shown to be absolutely wrong (not on opinion/forecasting issues), “oops”? Brilliant.
Just walked through this place yesterday. First the seller is desperate – looks like either a recent divorce or he was trader or hedge fundie and is down on his luck. Second the unit is quite narrow, even by Chicago standards – the developer built a nice wide staircase to the upper units which eats into the space. No way this place even sells with a 6 in front of it, but I got the impression that if you work it you could buy this place for $550K which is about the max I might pay.
Really though it smelled to me like this one’s going into foreclosure in a few months.
When he bought the place in ’07 he probably figured he’d hold it for a couple of years and then sell it for a cool million….
Heads he wins, tails the bank loses. Sounds like a smart gamble to me. Unfortunately even smart gambles sometimes don’t payoff.
I mean seriously, how much appreciation did he think he would get on a $717,500 condo???? What the hell was he thinking?
He was thinking northside Chicago would become the next SF or Manhattan.
This is the midwest where 700k buys a palatial estate. Guess he didn’t get that memo.
I know the owners. Not desperate or divorcing. The place is amazing inside and has a huge outdoor private space. I think it’s funny when everyone assumes bad luck or a repo these days. The reason to sell is simple they are considering building a single family property and the association does not allow rentals so it cannot be held for investment.
Jeff:
How did you come to the conclusion after touring the place? I just went through it and the place is in mint condition, fully furnished, and has no signs of anyone down on their luck. Also the place is wider and longer then other condos. Look at the lot size. Not saying it will sell for that price but I think its funny that you came to that conclusion by looking at a well appointed place.
Also the brand new Range Rover parked in his garage spot tells me you might be missing something. Just thinking here.
“I know the owners. Not desperate or divorcing. The place is amazing inside and has a huge outdoor private space. I think it’s funny when everyone assumes bad luck or a repo these days. The reason to sell is simple they are considering building a single family property and the association does not allow rentals so it cannot be held for investment.”
John:
So these owners are therefore aware that they will lose money on this purchase and are okay with that?
Why not just continue to live in the property instead of taking the loss?
I don’t understand the thinking. They just bought this property and put it on the market only 7 months later. Why did they buy the property in the first place?
The actions taken during the housing boom continue to amaze me.
Sabrina… I moved to Chicago… Rented for a bit which made me completely off the wall freaking nuts so I bought a place waiting for the other I was having redone to be finished. Decided Chicago was not going to be my home. Took my hit on selling both and moved on. On paper, to many, I look like a flipper, but that couldn’t have been further from the truth.
Sometimes it’s nothing to be amazed about. Just life.
“Also the brand new Range Rover parked in his garage spot tells me you might be missing something. Just thinking here.”
What is he missing that they have a car (possibly leased) that loses 1/3 of its value the day it leaves the lot, breaks constantly after 3 years, and has no resale value? The only car Land Rover (Ford-Tata) makes worth shit, you can not buy in the U.S.A.
Ze,
And you were an idiot for having some instinctive impulse to want to own without knowing if Chicago was for you longer term but still wanting to own. Completely irrational. But at least you’re (hopefully) smart enough to learn from the bath you took and keep your nesting instinct in check in the future. Typically its the gal in a relationship pressuring the guy to own. Just sayin..
Ze: So you entered into your transaction knowing that you were, essentially, putting a pile of money out in the backyard and lighting it on fire?
Because that’s what that was.
I understand in years past, during the boom, buyers and sellers could get away with what you did (trying to sell after only a few months or a year)- and actually make a profit (and some made quite a bit.)
But that was bubble mentality and that’s what we’re working through right now (on a national level.) Those circumstances have gone away- but the mentality has not.
Many people haven’t quite yet figured out that if they buy real estate they’re going to have to actually own it for more than, say, two years or they’re going to be burning money.
It’s not rational behavior (anymore) and will be unlearned by this real estate bust.
What buyers like this also tell me is that we’re nowhere close to the bottom. There’s still no fear amongst buyers that if they buy today that their property will be worth the same or less 3 years or 5 years or 10 years from now. No fear whatsoever (at least in Chicago.)
I don’t think you guys understand what ZE is saying. He did not purchase to make money. He bought to live. Not everyone thinks of buying a home as an investment and like ZE said “Took my hit on selling both and moved on.” He may have lost money but as a renter he would have been giving money away as well. Some realize that living in a home is not free as a renter or as an owner.
I am not arguing renting vs. buying but understand you should never prejudge someone b/c they are trying to sell their home.
I understand what he said perfectly. He said he didn’t care if he lost money on the transaction because renting freaked him out.
How am I burning money renting again VB?
He “took at hit” and moved on. I don’t take a hit when I move out of my rental. When you buy and own for 7 months or a year, you are essentially paying no principal on that mortgage. You’re renting from the bank AND showing up at the closing with a check.
Smart!
Insanity.
Ask anyone of the older generation (pre-bubble.) They would never have bought a property to live in for only a year. Buying property was a serious prospsect. You saved years for the downpayment and knew you would likely be in the property for a good number of years (not merely months or only 1 year.)
Sure- sometimes life intervenes (death, divorce, a job transfer.)
But there are examples on this thread of people who simply decided to burn their money instead. Almost literally.
As I said- this behavior is going to go away as people realize that the real estate boom isn’t coming back and that if you don’t live in a property for at least 5 years, you’re giving the bank (and your realtors) quite a bit of money.
Ok… If you rent and pay $2000/month at the end of the year you paid $24000 to live in your home.
“How am I burning money renting again VB?”
So Ze may have paid $70,000 to buy and pay morgtage, taxes and transaction fees. You both paid to live. Once again, I am not disagreeing with you regarding smart or stupid decisions regarding purchasing a home. But his intentions were not to flip and make money. I have made and lost money in my lifetime but agree with ZE: Renting drives me crazy.
By the way: I purchased a condo in 2005 and just sold this January. My profit: $133,552 after taxes and transaction fees. I sniffed out a deal and did live for free for 3 1/2 years.
How right you are, Sabrina.
Consider this: at the end of 2008 there were 19MM vacant homes in the US. Yes you got that right: nineteen MILLION. There were also 3.5MM homeless people at a recent estimate. Our government is still spending massive amounts of money, $275B lately to try to arrest or stem the return to affordability and let the market clear.
I can’t see why our government is promoting homelessness, but that is exactly what they are doing with this housing bill. They want housing to remain unaffordable and people to remain homeless, essentially.
In a pure-communist society those vacant homes would be filled. In a pure-capitalistic society the government would not intervene and let the market dictate housing prices. But our country’s government is far worse these days: they want to keep these homes vacant and keep people homeless.
Someone please explain to me why we have nineteen million vacant housing units, three and a half million homeless people and our government is spending $275 billion dollars in a feeble attempt to prop up property values??? Anyone?… Bueller?
“What buyers like this also tell me is that we’re nowhere close to the bottom.”
Sabrina “He said he didn’t care if he lost money”
Please show me in quotes where I said that. I said “renting made me… nuts” and is NOT an option on the decision tree for me.
“So you entered into your transaction knowing that you were, essentially, putting a pile of money out in the backyard and lighting it on fire?”
Actually at the time I probably would have placed my bets 82/18 price up/price down. The market was still rising and I never go countertrend. A very strong argument can be made that you are short a necessity (shelter) not owning, and in a rising market you are the one with more risk.
“What buyers like this also tell me is that we’re nowhere close to the bottom.”
I strongly disagree. The problem currently is not with buyers who were cognizant of their risk, bought within their means, took responsibility for their own losses, and did not leave anyone but themselves holding the bag. If all buyers acted like I did there would be no problems right now.
Now Bob!!
“you were an idiot for having some instinctive impulse to want to own”
There is no one who posts here MORE bearish than me, maybe equally bearish but not MORE bearish. As I said renting is NOT an option for me, it is completely non existent on the decision tree.
“Completely irrational”
I would define completely irrational as someone who argues wrongly for hours (both here and with your professors) about the Monte Hall – Prisoners Dilemma problem, has 3 people explain it to them, waits for one person to wrongly agree with them and willfully accepts the wrong answer. Then, to have it explained again, with the suggestion of how to test it in order to put all doubt to rest but yet ignores such suggestion because they prefer to hold to an incorrect belief they have held for years. Now that’s freaking stupidity.
“the bath you took”
Much more like a slap on the wrist with a pinky. ?
Now Bob!!! (part deux)
I took the time to figure this out for you…
Open excel. Go to tools>add ins> check them all.
Make column A “Trial 1…25” starting at A3
Label B1,C1,D1 “Door 1”, “Door 2″,”Door 3”
Label F1 “Pick Door 1″
In cell B3 insert =RANDBETWEEN(1,3)
In cell C3 insert =IF(B3=1,0,RANDBETWEEN(1,3))
In cell D3 insert =IF(B3=1,0,IF(C3=1,0,1))
Skip coulmn E for visual ease…
In cell F3 insert =IF(B3=1,1,””)
Now under all the trials in Cell F30 insert =COUNT(F3:F27)
Under that in cell F32 insert =F30/25 (which is the number of times the prize is in door 1 *which is what you picked everytime to start* divided by numer of trials (25). obviously the more trials the better since it will narrow the standard deviation of outcomes.
Now keep hitting F9 to recalc and you will see the amount of times you will win if you stick with your first pick. (for ease of formulas I always picked door 1 since it makes 0 difference and if you argue this I have no response other than to shake my head)
My range came in at 18-56% winners sticking with door number one with an average of 34% after hitting F9 40 times. My bet is if you make it 100 trials you never see above 50% winners even once.
BTW I never used Randbetween before so I figured this all out this morning just for you 🙂
Oops.. My bad!! left out between steps…
“In cell F3 insert =IF(B3=1,1,””) and before…..
“Now under all the trials in Cell F30 insert =COUNT(F3:F27)”
I should have written copy range B3-F3 and drag down to B27-F27
VB, did you represent the buyer on your sale?
And I did this all high as a kite… ROFLMAO!!
Well my XBox is calling… and then to the beach to play volleyball and check out the visuals. 🙂
Ze,
That some crazy shit ya smokin to have sat there and done that. Righteous 🙂
Oh.. and can ya send me some
“By the way: I purchased a condo in 2005 and just sold this January. My profit: $133,552 after taxes and transaction fees. I sniffed out a deal and did live for free for 3 1/2 years.”
Great! Good for you VB. But this is not the norm anymore. The majority of people who bought in 2005 will lose moeny if they sell now. They’re not living for free.
And going forward- the majority are not going to make money if they buy and sell within 3 years. They will lose.
People keep applying bubble economics to the housing market. We’re not going back to the last 10 years in the housing market for decades.
But that’s my point. Americans haven’t figured it out yet (as the Japanese have finally concluded.) Real estate will cease to be an “investment” (for 99% of Americans) and will simply be a place to live (kind of like that rental apartment, actually.)
Thank goodness. For the economy, and the country, to return to the norm, the obsession over making money in real estate has to come to an end.
We’re not even close to seeing that yet (which is why this site exists- of course.)
“at the end of 2008 there were 19MM vacant homes in the US”
Debunked. Among other things, that includes all vacant **rental apartments**. see http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2009/02/19_million_vaca.html
That’s your proof anon(tfo)? 3 paragraphs in businessweek calling out the census bureau? you can do better than that.
There’s really only 500k vacant homes. I read it somewhere… I forget.
btw anyone else getting the google ad on the right hand side of the screen for “Hacienda Matapalo” the Costa Rica investment property?
http://www.haciendamatapalo.com/your-investment.html
The fact that the number is the highest ever since record keeping began in the 50’s means nothing to you?
HD: “That’s your proof”
Well, tell me what part of it is incorrect? If you want to play the game of bad and misleading statistics, you’re no better than the realtors association.
I’m not disputing that the number of vacant for sale (or to-be for sale) homes is at an all time high in absolute numbers and (probably) as a percentage, too. But using topline numbers that misrepresent the reality supposed expressed by them is bs, and you know it (you don’t do stuff like that in court against competent opposing counsel, do you? recipe for embarassment). It’s like Madoff $50B fraud–it’s only $50B b/c that’s what the statements said–the actual dollars lost (i.e., before any phantom returns) is under $20B–why doesn’t the media use the smaller number? Because it isn’t as shocking (still shocking enough to me).
Previously Written
“The reason to sell is simple they are considering building a single family property and the association does not allow rentals so it cannot be held for investment.”
Can an association prohibit an owner from renting one’s unit? Seems unconstitutional. That could force a unit owner to sell at a loss, if the owner can not rent?
Seems like this association is wound a bit tight! Do they prohibit dogs, cats and children too!
Yes Janie- an association CAN prohibit you from renting out your unit. Some buildings don’t allow ANY rentals, some limit the number of years you can rent it out (2 or 3 is common) and some limit the total number of units that can be rented in the building at any given time.
And yes- they can also prohibit cats and dogs.
Probably not children- although I wonder what the rules are in the Over 55 communities?
To be FHA-approved (FHA loans for prospective occupants), doesn’t a building have to maintain a minimum percentage (I think 90% depending on the number of units) of owner-occupied units?
Deck furniture change but I cannot locate the listing or any sales info. Is their a better way to search than Trib.com sales listings?