Has the South Loop Fully Recovered from the Bust? A 2-Bedroom Townhouse at 1352 S. State
This 2-bedroom townhouse in Dearborn Park II at 1352 S. State in the South Loop recently came on the market.
This group of 50 townhouses was built in 1991 around a center courtyard, which is gated.
We actually chattered about this townhouse in 2009 and 2010 as the crash was going on. In 2010, they had reduced by $70,000. You can see that chatter here.
There were some interesting comments in that chatter, including this one from anon(tfo):
“Also, it’s priced to sell in July 2009. Unfortunately for the owners, it will never be July 2009 again.”
It has 3-stories and a 1-car attached garage along with room for a second car on the parking pad.
There are hardwood floors throughout and 2 skylights.
The listing says the kitchen has been “updated”. It has stainless steel appliances and a kitchen island.
The two bedrooms are on the third floor but there is also a den on the main floor that the listing says could be turned into a third bedroom.
In April 2009, this townhouse as listed for sale at $539,000, before it had to reduce to sell.
It’s currently listed at $589,000.
Has the South Loop completely recovered (and then some) the 2008-2009 high prices?
Frederic Scovell at Coldwell Banker has the listing. See the pictures here.
1352 S. State: 2 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, 1860 square feet
- The original 1990s sales price isn’t listed in the CCRD
- Sold in April 2011 for $480,000
- Currently listed for $589,000
- Assessments of $105 a month (includes exterior maintenance, lawn care, scavenger, snow removal) (in 2010 it was $85 a month)
- Taxes of $8605 (in 2010 they were $4342)
- Central Air
- 1-car garage with parking for second car on the parking pad
- Bedroom #1: 11×14 (third floor)
- Bedroom #2: 16×10 (third floor)
- Den: 13×11 (main floor)
2008 – 2009 was already past peak. Indeed prices of townhomes in the South Loop are actually above even 2006 prices in many cases though there are always exceptions.
This particular community is pretty desirable as a gated area.
This place is just depressing.
Is this just badly staged or the owners dont own a hammer?
I think the West Loop held its value better than the South Loop during the bust but both have bounced back and the South Loop is desirable again.
We (with Gary’s motley crew) sold our South Loop condo and we did not have to bring money to the table. If we had waited until this year we might have actual made money but were not going to take that risk.
If I lived in this part of town I’d want to be in a gated area too, there is always degenerate wierdos strolling around at all hours
STOP. Hammer Time!!!
In all honesty some people just don’t have hammer skills.
Hammer Dysfunction is no laughing matter – 12% of Americans suffer from it at some point in their lives. Hammer skills matter people!!!
LOLZ!!! Nailed it!!!
“always degenerate wierdos strolling around at all hours”
And you know this from strolling around the area at all hours?
“the owners dont own a hammer”
Bet they had the place painted before pix, and didn’t want to put holes in freshly patched/painted walls.
Of course, that means they should have hidden the art in a closet for the pix, but still.
“Bet they had the place painted before pix, and didn’t want to put holes in freshly patched/painted walls.”
if this is the case, they or their agent have absolutely no clue what you should be painting your home prior to selling.
Those color choices are just fine, no need for everyone to jump on the gray and white sheep train.
I like this place and am hoping that in a few years I’ll be able to afford a town house at this price point.
I don’t see a lot of weirdos in this area. I mostly see families with kids, using the parks and what not.
“I like this place and am hoping that in a few years I’ll be able to afford a town house at this price point. ”
In a few years, there won’t be any townhomes available at this price point. It’s pretty clear we are headed towards coastal pricing. Expect similar units for upwards of $900,000 in a few years time.
Someone please explain how “coastal pricing” works. I know that coastal people are not afraid to take on enormous amounts of home debt.
Do coastal people actually pay off their homes with a 25-30 year mortgage? Or is there a balloon at the end that requires financing a new mortgage for another 25 or 30 years? Thus creating a 50-60 year mortgage.
I know the coastal salaries and I know the coastal home prices. I just don’t see how an average professional couple can afford the monthly mortgage payment on an average coastal home with a 25-30 year mortgage.
I’ve always wondered if inherited wealth or lots of retired people (where net worth is much higher than income) plays a role.
“I just don’t see how an average professional couple can afford the monthly mortgage payment on an average coastal home with a 25-30 year mortgage.”
Well, from my limited experience involving family members in coastal (not inland) CA; My uncle has owned his home for a long, long time, so his 1970’s purchase was super cheap. His son age 40 roughly bought a house for cash at the end of the recession using all cash from the seemingly endless well of stock options and sky high stock prices from investing in technology stocks while living at home. And his daughter and son-in-law scrimped and saved and got a little family money to buy a shack in a crappier part of the valley (despite both having engineering jobs). And his other son owned a small technology business that made money hand over fist and paid for a house. as for everybody else, sure they are willing to take on lots of debt. But for those not in debt, there’s a lot of money floating around that gilded state, all you have to do is stick your hand into the stream of cash and siphon off some for yourself.
HD, you must be very proud of your cousins
i had four other cousins move to CA too unlike my other cousins who are natives. one is a teacher and rents and is resigned to renting for the rest of his life. The other is a drug rep and the last I heard still rented too. these are 45-50 year olds now. unless you have some major source of income or some well for a down payment you’re just not gonna buy a home. prop 13 really messes up the equation too because guys like my uncle say he will never ever sell because he can’t. taxes in a new home would be outrageous. he says there’s a handful of companies that will reciprocate on taxes if you do a lateral move. He has no interest in doing that. that alone keeps significant number of homes off the market due to the low taxes
sorry counties, not companies.
“I know the coastal salaries and I know the coastal home prices. I just don’t see how an average professional couple can afford the monthly mortgage payment on an average coastal home with a 25-30 year mortgage.”
Where on the coast? California?
It matters now that prices have exceeded the prior highs in the major cities.
There have always been neighborhoods that were more “affordable” even within San Francisco and Los Angeles.
In SF, you could live in Visitation Valley, Bayview and the Outer Sunset for $1 million (that is pre-recent highs.) If you can’t afford SF, you move across the Bay to Oakland or over the hill to Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek or even Concord.
On the Peninsula, almost nothing has been “affordable” since 2000 but most don’t buy houses. They buy the $1 million townhouse. These still exist.
In LA, there are more affordable parts depending on where you work/commute. People are buying $600,000 houses near downtown in the old historic district. Highland Park is somewhat “affordable.” Long Beach is the same. Again, many look at townhouses now (not SFH).
By professional salaries, I suppose you mean about $200,000 combined for the couple. That is doable in California (not speaking for the other coast.)
The more problematic are those who are middle class. Those making $50,000 to, say, $125,000. If they didn’t already buy, they are screwed right near the coasts. They are even screwed in most of the inland areas.
Many professionals buy thanks to the bank of mom and dad. If they are California natives, many of their parents are homeowners and are now rich (depending on location.) They take out loans on the house and give the kids $400,000 in order to buy. One of my friends, a California native who is a baby boomer, told me once that “everybody” does it like that. That is how the next generation buys. And that keeps working unless, and until, home prices don’t go up anymore.
But in the last 30+ years, all that has happened in California (except for about 4 years during the Great Recession bust) is that housing prices have only gone up.
No one in California buys stocks. Why should they? Housing has been more profitable.
Most don’t have much in 401k plans. They don’t have college savings either. If they have to pay for college, they tap the house.
For those who don’t get the downpayment from the parents, I’ve heard of a few examples where 40-somethings have raided the $300,000 401k/IRA investments for that downpayment. They have to pay it back, with interest, but at least it gets them into the $1.2 million house on the $200,000-$250,000 salary.
“In a few years, there won’t be any townhomes available at this price point. It’s pretty clear we are headed towards coastal pricing. Expect similar units for upwards of $900,000 in a few years time.”
It depends on what they build, right?
The South Loop will see thousands of new housing units over the next 10 years between the River Line project (which will have some townhouses, but mostly condos/apartments) and the huge chunk of land south of Roosevelt Road that Related is going to develop.
It’s hard to get coastal pricing when thousands of units will come online.
“I’ve always wondered if inherited wealth or lots of retired people (where net worth is much higher than income) plays a role.”
Gary- most of the middle class retirees I know actually leave California. It’s nearly impossible to retire there due to the housing costs and the tax structure unless you’re really well off.
A lot of them end up living in Mexico, actually, where the weather/culture is similar in cities like Puerto Vallarta and San Miguel de Allende.
“prop 13 really messes up the equation too because guys like my uncle say he will never ever sell because he can’t.”
I would say that is not messing up the equation. It’s a rational way of preventing long term residents from getting screwed and forced to move by rising property taxes. Rising property taxes is one of the main arguments against gentrification. Solve that problem and you have much less resistance to that process.
“In a few years, there won’t be any townhomes available at this price point. It’s pretty clear we are headed towards coastal pricing. Expect similar units for upwards of $900,000 in a few years time.”
you mean with 50% higher state income taxes and two more years of real estate taxes in 2018 and 2019 before the inevitable state and city bankruptcy?
” the inevitable state … bankruptcy?”
It’s inevitable that Congress will allow Illinois to file bankruptcy? Huh.
damn they’re gonna raise our taxes and go bankrupt that quickly? da fuq man!
Congress is the only political body that has the authority to override the pension protection clause of the Illinois constitution. But if they don’t step in and set federal legal precedent allowing states like Illinois to reform pension then what realistic option will there be that doesn’t involve Chicago bankruptcy? Is anyone really banking on congress getting anything useful done? The liability keeps growing and growing and tax hikes aren’t going to do the trick.
“Congress is the only political body that has the authority to override the pension protection clause of the Illinois constitution.”
What’s the legal theory there?
How does Congress invalidate a provision of a state constitution, where the provision is not a violation of the Fed Constitution, nor a matter of (general) Federal Concern?
Congress could authorize IL to file bankruptcy, and it’s conceivable that a bankruptcy court could find the “contractual relationship” that is protected in the IL Constitution to be a rejectable contract. Such a decision would certainly get appealed to the Supreme Court.
“What’s the legal theory there? ”
ERISA baby, ERISA
Under Contract