Hate High-Rises? Live in a 3-Bedroom Townhouse in River North: 350 W. Huron
This 3-bedroom townhouse at 350 W. Huron in River North recently came on the market.
These townhouses were among the earliest new construction in River North, built in 1997. There are 56 units with garages.
They are built with one unit on the first level and the more expensive unit, such as this one, on top.
This townhouse has 3-levels along with an attached garage with 2-car parking, one in the garage and a second exterior spot.
It has arched oversized windows and a top floor balcony or terrace.
The kitchen has white cabinets, stainless steel appliances and granite counter tops.
The master bedroom is on the second floor with the second bedroom.
The top level has the third bedroom, the recreation room, a full bath and the balcony with city views.
If you want to live in River North, and you don’t want a midrise or high-rise building, is this a good family home option?
Zane Jacobs at Redfin has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit B: 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, no square footage listed
- Sold in May 1999 for $575,500
- Sold in September 2004 for $775,000
- Currently listed for $1.1 million
- Assessments of $701 a month (includes exterior maintenance, lawn care, scavenger, snow removal)
- Taxes of $16398
- Central Air
- Washer/Dryer on the second floor
- 1-car garage parking with a second exterior spot
- Bedroom #1: 14×19 (second floor)
- Bedroom #2: 9×17 (second floor)
- Bedroom #3: 11×13 (third floor)
- Recreation room: 13×15 (third floor)
- Family room: 11×19 (main floor)
When I first moved back to Chicago in 1999 I used to work right around the corner from here and always thought these were the coolest townhomes because of their size, external design, and location. And the location has only become better since then. I’ve never been inside of them.
It’s called Tuxedo Park and this unit was listed back in 2004 as having 3086 sq ft but it’s always been a routine practice of developers to include the garage in those numbers for townhomes so it may include it.
I like the look of these from the exterior, but I am not sure that I would consider this a townhouse. I always think of a townhouse as a place with no unit above or below it. This has a unit below it. How is this not a duplex up condo? Don’t you own the land below you in a townhouse?
“Don’t you own the land below you in a townhouse?”
Depends. Some are fee simple, some are condo. *some* would call a fee simple TH a “rowhouse” to distinguish.
That said, I agree that calling this a TH is a stretch–merely having your own from door does not a townhouse make.
Also: The master bath is shared with the second bedroom?
And hate the menards special shower surround at this price. Was (barely) ok at the ’99 price, but not now.
I like the unit. nice for a small 3 or maybe even 4 person household. Also like the 3d walkthrough. I wish more listings had these 3-d walkthroughs, it really feels like being there w/o actually going to the listing. Looks like a fair price for the area and the size.
only thing that sucks about these is that there is someone above you or below you… you don’t own all the vertical space… so its pretty much a duplex condo thing
I remember looking at these around 2013, wish I had the money to buy one then 🙁
Well, now you got me started on the 3D walkthroughs. I think they’re great for buyers but, although we offer them to our sellers, I strongly discourage their use. If we put together an interactive floorplan we can carefully plan each shot to present each room from the optimal vantage point. Our goal is to get you in the door so we can sell you on the place and see how you react to it. The last thing we need is for you to be sitting at home by yourself stumbling into furniture, wandering down a seemingly narrow passageway, and thinking that some corner is dark or this is too close to that and then concluding that you don’t want to see the place.
The assessments seem high for a townhouse. Without a doorman or common hallways, do these places really cost $8400 a year to maintain?
And that my friends, is why redfin is a game changer in the real estate industry…
Also holy shit the amount of stairs in this place is insane, 5 floors from the garage to the roof deck?
Sonies,
If you were selling your house I would certainly offer you a 3D tour. You could have it. Would you want one? Do you think that is in your best interest as a SELLER?
Yeah because I don’t want people to waste my time either with a bunch of tire kickers? You can get a pretty good idea of how a place is laid out from the 3d tour and if they are serious they will ask for an in person showing… its just as big a pain in the ass as a seller to have to get yourself and such out of the house for people to look so why not have serious buyers that at least like the layout show up
If someone took that stance we would certainly accommodate them. I actually suspect that Redfin, and other agents that offer this, secretly do this so that they don’t have to “waste” their time either. At some level it makes the realtor’s job easier also. However, I really do believe that you will lose good buyers this way and ultimately it could take longer to sell and you would sell at a lower price.
I don’t know of many sellers that want to reduce the number of showings. In fact, one of the worst problems we have are the sellers that want us to figure out how to bring in buyers that are NOT interested in seeing their house – e.g. people that live out of the area that are not currently looking for a home like theirs in their area.
It probably evens out, I think that it adds velocity to a relatively slow and inefficient process. I highly doubt that having more information out there about a property is going to lead to a lower sales price, unless you really think there is that much selling a realtor is doing when you walk them in the door… I mean open houses aren’t for selling they are for collecting leads
I lived here and sold my place back in 2014. The location gets better every year. Close to a great park. Lot of families around here and in this complex. Fits a younger or smaller family that decided to stay in the city. The HOA is a little high, but that is because they spend a lot of money maintaining the landscaping on the street side that always gets destroyed by careless dog owners. I think they have now installed metal barriers so that problem is solved. They also had a decent reserve. All in, it is close to all the cool restaurants coming on Wells and already on Randolph. Close to the loop, if you work there. Close to brown/purple line. Close to the Mart. I think all in the price for the area is good, the location is awesome and the house is large enough. And you get used to the stairs and are healthier (!!) in the process. Finally, a lot of owners have significantly renovated their places and some of them look fantastic.
I don’t care for the 3D tour, but love to see floor plans. I think that all listings should include a floor plan.
With the rise in VR technology though, it would be cool to see a virtual reality tour.
“The assessments seem high for a townhouse. Without a doorman or common hallways, do these places really cost $8400 a year to maintain?”
The complex is gated on the other side. The association owns the parking lot and street etc “on the “other side” so they’ll have to maintain all that.
The owner of this unit gets the participate in that funding.
“With the rise in VR technology though, it would be cool to see a virtual reality tour.”
when I think about how far technology has come in real estate…when i was first looking Realty websites were just starting out. You were lucky to get a few pictures of the properties and for condos it was usually just a shot of the building.
I wonder what is the next tech leap?
I don’t care for 3d renderings because they are usually not all that accurate and the VR stuff is really clunky, especially on phones. However, floor plans should be a given. Corcoran Realty in NYC includes floorplans on all their listings and it is really helpful when browsing properties.
I read about one of the lux condos having VR tours.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/realestate/20170627/CRED0701/170629869/the-next-frontier-in-condo-sales-its-straight-out-of-star-trek
I would love to try it out. But seems to be too much effort to have to make an appointment and i wonder if they screen you or give you a hard-sell?
“The owner of this unit gets the participate in that funding.”
Yes, funding for the driveway to this unit’s garage and outdoor parking space. The “other side” also being the “backdoor” to this unit.
STAIRS GOOD FOR YOUR JAN TERRI FITNESS PLAN.
OLD STYLE EACH FULL CYCLE LOLZ!!!
GO CUBBIES!!!!
I used to live just down the street from here for a little while. Nice units, there are some that have pretty cool roof decks. Less riff raff in the neighborhood since citizen shut down.
Probably a really fair price for 3k square feet in current market.
PS – i’d shell out a bit more and buy the bigger unit with a rooftop.
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/River-North-Chicago-IL/58366561_zpid/403300_rid/0-2000000_price/0-7354_mp/priced_sort/41.903091,-87.623413,41.880345,-87.651737_rect/14_zm/?
“unless you really think there is that much selling a realtor is doing when you walk them in the door… I mean open houses aren’t for selling they are for collecting leads”
Interesting topic. So there is the reality and then there is what sellers believe. True what you say about open houses, yet about 20% of sellers really believe they make a difference and we do them just to make them happy. I would say that about 5 – 10% of the time you can sell a home through an open house – but usually when the house is interesting enough to draw reasonable traffic.
Then there is the issue of how much difference a realtor can make showing a home. On a scale of 0 (useless) – 10 (miracle worker) I’d say the reality is it’s about a 2 but worth the effort. However, interestingly I believe the average seller thinks it’s more like an 8 based on the comments and questions we get (e.g. “Did you point out the brass hinges on the doors?”) More importantly perhaps is being able to answer questions and objections on the spot and gathering information about who the buyer is and what they are looking for. Collectively, this becomes extremely valuable when trying to figure out a price reduction.
I agree it’s a two, not an eight. But I don’t know anyone remotely dumb enough to think it’s an eight; everybody I know thinks realtors mainly just need to show up, KNOW the property so as not to be a liability when questions are asked, and have the patience to do it enough times to get lucky.
The people on Cribchatter, and most likely the people you know, are not representative of home sellers in general. I’ve been doing this for 10 years now and I can assure you that the vast majority of consumers are not rational when it comes to selecting real estate agents. They think they have special powers and that’s why consistently they are willing to pay high commissions for realtors whose “signs they see everywhere” or who “know the neighborhood” or who “have international buyers” or who “will market the home internally” or …. I can go on and on. It’s insane but true. When it comes to selling a home the consumer wants desperately to believe that the right agent is going to “sell it/ market it” and get them the highest price. Why do you think that the vast, vast majority of homes listed even above $500K are being listed at 5%+ commissions?
I don’t like open houses. It seems like a way for agents to get more clients. If I’m interested in a place, I don’t want to go to an open house where there are going to be other people there while I’m looking at it.
I do like when the seller’s agent is on site. When I go to sell, I would insist on that. I don’t like the idea of weird people walking around my house unless someone I trust is there too. My parents sold their house in this way. They required that their agent show up for showings and they didn’t have an open house. The agent they used didn’t do open houses anyway.
This sounds like an ideal area for some disruptive automation.
Where is my Realtor-Bot?
I think open houses can be great in the right situation. I first saw the house we bought at an open house. We’d seen the listing several times, and the pictures made the place look dated and sad. They had an open house and I decided to go, and saw it was a great house with sad furnishings and decor and realized if we could use that to get it at a lower price, it’d be great. We ended up getting the house, getting rid of their furniture and decor AND getting a great price.
It’s idiotic to think you can convince someone to buy a place with limitations because your staged photos cover the flaws. Sounds exactly like the way used car dealers operate.
MJ,
Every single home has limitations. If you want to get the highest possible price in the shortest amount of time you naturally are going to want to show it in the best possible light to get as many people in there as possible. That’s why we stage places (and that’s why people dress to hide their flaws when they go on dates). But you might not be able to move that 200 pound treadmill out of the way in the bedroom so you shoot around it. And you probably want to emphasize the 20 ft ceilings in the family room but hide the fact that there is a brick wall outside one of the windows. The point of the showing is to make sure that the buyer understands all the benefits and has an opportunity to weigh them against the drawbacks.
Have you ever sold a place? In what price range? Did you care what the photos looked like?
Staging is for chump buyers who lack vision. Better to see a place vacant. And yes I’ve sold a number of properties and never had to rely on staging.
And there are a plenty of chump buyers out there and those would be the best ones for a seller.
So let me ask you this, Sid, have you ever sold a place above $400K and paid a 5%+ commission? If so, why, when you could have paid less?
Yes, twice. I’ve experimented with the discount option, with disappointing results. As in no sale in two months in a sellers’ market. The full service person had it sold in a week with no price adjustment, I know you mocked this in an earlier post but it was a buyer from within the same firm and the networking worked for me. Likely never going to get that from the discount options. The full service realtors just do a better job in my experience. I have used the discount option on the buy side twice, and would continue to do so.
“realtors mainly just need to show up, KNOW the property so as not to be a liability when questions are asked, and have the patience to do it enough times to get lucky.” yet discount realtors haven’t worked for you but networking does and it’s worth 5%+ commission? And staging doesn’t help either? You see my problem? I’m not trying to be nasty but I find seller logic fascinating and I appreciate your sharing your story.
There are different flavors of “discount” out there. If you do the flat fee MLS route for $500 you basically get nothing but an MLS listing with crappy photos. You do your own showings. There is also a step up from that where you actually get a realtor but they are totally unresponsive and it’s actually hard to get a showing from them. We run into that all the time when we represent buyers. The seller never even realizes it’s happening to them except they can’t sell their place. And then there are realtors willing to discount their commission but still do a good job. If you had one of the really cheap options then it’s no surprise you didn’t get good results.
The whole networking thing is a myth but it’s supported by random chance. I’ve done the analysis. Typically a brokerage is on the buy side of their listings pretty much in line with their share of the buyers in that segment. If a brokerage represents 10% of the buyers in a segment of the market then you would expect them to be on the buy side 10% of the time regardless of who is listing the property. That in fact is the case. So your result probably occurred as a result of random chance. Keep in mind that agents are independent contractors. They don’t care whose listing they bring a buyer to. And it’s not like they get on a phone with their colleagues to discuss their listings. Hell, the odds of two agents being in the office at the same time are near zero. The top agents are never even in the office. And buyers are driving the process today, rarely their agents. But it makes a great story and keeps commissions high.
“So let me ask you this, Sid, have you ever sold a place above $400K and paid a 5%+ commission? If so, why, when you could have paid less?”
I have always wondered this. Our place is going for about $820k now. For a mental exercise I was curious how much it costs to sell (first time buyer, never sold a place yet). Looked it up, 6% split between two realtors. OUCH.
So if I sold my place at market ($820k) I’m paying $41,000 for two realtors. I’m sorry but NOTHING you guys do is worth $41,000 to me.
That is an entire salary for a year for one person. Ridiculous.
“So if I sold my place at market ($820k) I’m paying $41,000 for two realtors. I’m sorry but NOTHING you guys do is worth $41,000 to me.”
We agree. That’s why we do it for substantially less at that price point. And, technically, you can’t really look up the commission. There is a bit of variation.
“6% split between two realtors. OUCH.
So if I sold my place at market ($820k) I’m paying $41,000 for two realtors”
If it were 6%, it’d be $49,200. So, even worse.
Ouch. I do not look forward to the day when I have to sell. Does selling a house for $800,000 really cost that much more than selling a place for $400,000? It just feels like sellers are being fleeced. I also don’t understand how the tradition of the buyer’s agent being paid by the seller started. It seems to me that buyers should have to pay a flat fee if they decide to use an agent. My agent helped me with a few paper work type things and went with me to see condos, but I really don’t see why a buyer’s agent should ever make more than a couple thousand. At least the seller’s agents is actually putting effort into marketing a home.
Clearly it does not. It’s more work but not twice the work. That’s why I instituted a sliding commission scale.
I believe that the tradition of the seller paying the buyer’s agent originated with the concept of sub-agency, which may still be in practice in some states. Basically, both agents are presumed to be working FOR the seller. In Illinois, that is not the case (might have been years ago) but the compensation has stayed the same.
How much work the buyer’s agent does varies greatly from one buyer to the next. The easy buyers are subsidizing the difficult buyers and the same is true for sellers.
The whole industry is totally screwed up and ripe for change but even the consumer is clinging to the outmoded model out of fear. I alluded to that above. It’s an interesting business school case.
Not sure what your point of confusion is Gary. The discount realtors couldn’t even do those minimal things I outlined. They were an actual liability, I could have FSBO’d far better. You’d think it would be easy enough, but nope. So I moved on. I didn’t hire anyone for “networking” but it seems to have worked out. Embellishment? Fact or fiction? Who knows? Generally it IS mostly just having a clean, well-maintained place, luck and the market. I most certainly didn’t do anything out of “fear”, I just took the “safer” option after plan A did not work out, and guess what, it worked out just fine and was a night and day experience. The most certain thing is that staging had nothing to do with it. Also you are right about it being a buyer driven market which is a big reason discounters have worked out adequately on the buy side, other than perhaps a timid first time buyer who needs handholding I can’t see the need for paying full price there.
Realtors are paid so much because they have to deal with *you*. People for some reason get really irrational when it comes to buying and selling their home; and nearly all of them have completely irrational values of their home. I don’t complain for a minute when I see a realtor earn his or her 5% to 6%. In most cases, they earned it. I don’t necessarily think it’s an outdated model by any stretch of the imagination. the FSBO market is a complete joke, in which FBSO basically means overpriced eclectic crapshack that will sit for years. Those people are generally too cheap to even hire attorneys too. but as they say, the cheapest guy ends up paying the most.
Realtor commissions reflect the risk associated with being 100% commissioned and the fact that every deal is unique in regards to time and resources necessary to complete. For every property that sells in a weekend with multiple offers and the Realtor gets $15k check for a few hours work, there is another that sits for several months and may never sell due to maybe an irrational seller. As Gary mentioned, the easy deals wind up paying for the hard deals. Not many people are willing to work for weeks or months and not earn a dime.
If buyers/sellers were willing to take on the risk associated with NOT BUYING or SELLING, Realtors could charge lower prices. Most consumers rather pay the higher commissions as they are only paid if a property is sold versus a lower price that must be paid regardless. Let’s take a typical $500k condo. Buyer’s agent and their brokerage gets 2.5%, so $12,500 on that sale. Most buyers rather implicitly pay that $12,500 through the price of the home only if they actually buy instead of say having to write a personal check for $2500 regardless if they buy a home or not.
Redfin has made waves, but they still aren’t profitable which does not bode well given we’ve had a hot market over the past several years. It doesn’t say much about their model.
I cannot believe anyone looks at the exterior facade of these things and finds them attractive or cool looking. I think they are hideous. Nothing lines up from one level to the next. The bottom half and top half look to me like someone when all mixy-matchy on two sets of plans for two different developments.
I walk by these things every day – – agree the location gets better and better but really had no idea they aren’t real town-homes since this listing. Why didn’t people buy the top and bottom and combine them at least?
They are definitely hideous, but they have their own private entrances and several floors of space and are one of the few non-condo options in the neighborhood. No one buys in a town home community because the townhouses are so cool looking. Although, these are particularly ugly and it almost seems like the developer picked the ugliest of all possible designs.