Irving Park Victorian Waiting 17 Months for a Buyer: 4209 N. Bernard
We last chattered about this 3-bedroom Victorian home at 4209 N. Bernard in Irving Park in June 2009.
See our June 2009 chatter and pictures here. The picture above is from the June 2009 listing.
It has been on and off the market since then and is now reduced $35,900 since June 2009.
The listing says the house has a new kitchen with stainless steel appliances.
Two of the bedrooms are on the second floor and the third is in the basement, which also has a full bath and a separate entrance.
While it has a 2-car garage it does not have central air (window units only.)
Elizabeth Bleeker at Prudential Rubloff now has the listing. See the pictures here.
4209 N. Bernard: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, no square footage listed, 2 car garage
- Sold in January 1988 for $45,000
- Sold in July 2003 for $225,000
- Originally listed in March 2009
- Was listed in June 2009 for $344,900
- Reduced
- Currently listed for $309,000
- Taxes of $3716
- No central air- window units
- Living room: 13×13
- Dining room: 14×12
- Kitchen: 12×10
- Bedroom #1: 12×13 (second floor)
- Bedroom #2: 13×11 (second floor)
- Bedroom #3: 12×8 (lower level)
- Den: 11×7 (main floor)
This owner is just dumb and here’s to hoping they don’t get a bailout by an unsuspecting purchaser. 2003 price looks about right.
put down 20%, get a thirty year mortgage at 4.375% like I saw at Wells Fargo last week, and P&I is only $1250. Wow, I may have to get in the market again.
So, that was a different Bob that thought it was a deal @ $345k on the last post, a year ago?
I realize Bob is a popular name, so I’m assuming that’s the case.
Run now to put that offer in db, or be priced out forever. Nevermind that the previous owner got this place for a mere $84,000 less than their current ask price.
The economy is so much better now than it was in 2003 and you’re never going to see a house trade at below 300k in the fabled “green zone”.
“So, that was a different Bob that thought it was a deal @ $345k on the last post, a year ago?”
No those are indeed my words–words to eat by. However you’ll note I DID condition my statement with “IF this is a good neighborhood”. It may well not be, which would explain it. It’s not _too far_ from the Kimball stop on the brown line, which I consider to be dicey.
Just had to comment–I enjoyed the picture of the back yard. The “artistic” photo taken through a window box makes it look a lot more exotic (not to mention larger). Very clever!
This seems like a very good deal. I know people disagree w/me, but it really shouldn’t matter what the person paid for the property. Don’t judge the current value based on the seller’s potential profit/loss. That is plain stupid. What if the seller bought it for a 100k as a foreclosure, does that mean that it is only worth a 100k now? On the other hand, what if the seller bought it for 400k? Does that mean it’s worth closer to that amount? Just a stupid way to look at things.
i wanted to ignor but i just pulls me in…
Clio,
really you don’t think knowing what the persons stake in the property would not help Icarus in working out a deal that can either benefit him monetary or save him time?
Groove, I agree that it MAY be helpful to know what the person’s loan amount and purchase price is/was. However, this is very dangerous information and has led to the demise of many potential sales (mainly b/c the buyer didn’t want to see the seller get a certain profit for whatever idiotic reason – or the buyer excepted huge concessions b/c the seller didn’t have “that much” of a mortgage).
Try this little experiment: When you are buying a house, ask yourself what you would pay for it if the owner paid 1 dollar for it and then ask yourself what would you pay if the owner paid 1 million dollars for it. If you come up with 2 different numbers, then you are not going about the purchase offer in the right way.
I have to agree with Clio here to some extent. I think people get way too caught up in what someone paid for a place. It’s useful information but when it trumps all other information something is wrong.
“mainly b/c the buyer didn’t want to see the seller get a certain profit for whatever idiotic reason”
Maybe because buyer woke up that the seller was trying to pass off some crazy RE valuations based on comps during the peak of the bubble and not necessarily relevant today?
With the Chicagoland Case Shiller index already back at 2002 levels and likely going lower I think when you have such drastic appreciation baked into the ask price as we see here in between sales in less than a decade’s time its worth investigation exactly why. And I don’t think “but they bought before the bubble” is good justification at all.
But the point Clio is making here is that not every single home in the City should follow the same trajectory as the average home regardless of the individual circumstances of the previous purchase.
i will agree with the fact previous sale prices holds to much weight on this site.
but take Icarus for example. Lets say the owners he would like to purchase from bought the place for 550k on a 80/15/5 in 2008 and now want to sell for 500k when the comps say otherwise.
Icarus wants this property but would rather not pay 500k for it. now you dont think its to his agents advantage to know the loan and previous price paid to come in with a reasonable negotiation?
add to that lets say the buyer bought in 2006 that same prop for 410k on a 80/20 but in 2008 HELOC the shyt out of it and owe 520k and will be bringing 20k to the table.
if you dont think this is relevant and not a key piece to negotiations then my friend i doubt your ability as a business man and question your common sense
Groove… you are correct. However, many on this site don’t seem to understand that neighborhoods and the demand to live in certain neighborhoods change. The price that the previous person paid is irrelevant for the most part to what something is worth today.
All properties have not necessarily lost value. I have seen quite a few recent appraisals on properties that have increased in value from what the borrower paid a year or two ago. I have also seen the same number that have decreased and a large number that have stayed the same. Trust me when I saw that appraisals these days are VERY CONSERVATIVE to the point of low balling values. Just as appraisers tended to over shoot valuations durign the boom, they are doing the same during the correction.
Groove,
why add a layer of confusion and 2nd guessing into the equation. You are never going to know the seller’s true motivation/financial situation/emotional state, etc.. Why not let the sellers decide on their own if whatever offer Icarus puts together is good for them. If it is a good deal for the sellers, they will take it.
In my experience, I have found that it is extremely damaging and dangerous to the deal when buyers find out how much I owe on a property and make an offer based on that. It is so stupid b/c they have no idea of what my motivation for selling is – it always kills the sale. It is especially damaging when the buyer’s broker/agent tries to tell my agent/broker that the deal is good based on what I paid for the property and how much I owe on it – an ignorant and stupid tactic in many cases.
Russ or others versed on the topic: If I buy a place today with less than 20%, but then get a higher appraisal a few months from now, such that I’ve now got the required 20% (or 25%) equity, can I cease paying mortgage insurance?
I suspect the whole “what someone paid/owes on a place” was originally supposed to be something to factor into an offer — They owe X so they cannot afford to entertain offers of less than X — but has since become the driving force.
If you want to read the entire skinny on that house, click on my name and read the blog post from 8/26/10.
Knowing that people place too much emphasis on what someone paid and what they owe, a smart listing agent can take advantage of that naivety.
anonny, not unless you refinance and go through the whole process again.
touche Gary!
“If you want to read the entire skinny on that house, click on my name and read the blog post from 8/26/10.”
Okay, opinion revised–*definite* no. Stretch and/or overpay if it *really* has everything you want, but your description says it does not. That’s an absolute pass.
“Knowing that people place too much emphasis on what someone paid and what they owe, a smart listing agent can take advantage of that naivety”
ding ding ding, love that answer Gary.
My point is that i would want my agent to know each and every detail he can so he would be able to find that “side step”, “nook”, or “wiggle room” to get me a deal or agreement to my advantage.
*Negotiations are not a agreement of two(or more) parties on a fair deal/price/trade. Negotiations are to get myself the best deal possible while making the other parties FEEL like they came out on top.
“how much I owe on it – an ignorant and stupid tactic in many cases”
Clio, i maybe wording things wrong or your glancing over the premise. The previous sale price and what is owed isn’t the whole picture but it can give you an ANGLE and where you can go and how to proceed during a negotiation.
“This seems like a very good deal.”
Yes, “it SEEMS like a very good deal” until someone gets shot in front of your house and you realize that you paid $309K to live in gang territory on the northwest side. This is not a good area. It’s pretty dicey and block by block. The idiots who thought they were going to be urban pioneers in this area seem to be fleeing. During a heated, um, debate with one of said pioneers, a 50-something-year-old friend—who has lived in this area her entire life—referred to them as “low-rent yuppies who couldn’t afford Lakeview.”
This place is WAY overpriced. The funny/sad thing is…a-holes paid way more than this for those awful mcmansions around here at the height of the bubble.
Epic fail!
“Okay, opinion revised–*definite* no. Stretch and/or overpay if it *really* has everything you want, but your description says it does not. That’s an absolute pass.”
Indeed.
Icarus, is there something about this particular house that is unique? Otherwise, why not buy something that is at market price in your view? Your requirements, at least as stated, don’t seem that impossible to meet. It’s not clear from your blog entry why that is your dream house (if you don’t want to say I certainly understand). The main distinguishing characteristic appears to be its price.
Groove, I understand what you are saying, but that information IS dangerous. It can make someone feel unjustifiably ecstatic (as I was when I bought that stupid horse farm for 530k in 2008 after finding out that the previous owner paid 940k in 2001) or very angry (as one of my buyers was after realizing that I was making a 150k profit in 1 year on one of my Hinsdale houses – that buyer was a pain in the ass until the closing and even afterwards)!!
Psychology, whether we want to believe it or not, heavily influences our decisions = especially in real estate when dealing with large amounts of money.
I don’t think the yuppification of north side neighborhoods is going to end anytime soon. The demand seems to be solid, despite the real estate market. I look at spreads between suburbs and the city and this only seems to support that trend. Then I listen to (or participate in) the commute times on the Kennedy and I know for a fact city living is a durable change.
As an aside, the positive comments supporting a home purchase today are encouraging (HD must be on vacation or stuck in chancery court). My resounding vote is to buy the house and ride it out from the comfort of your new home, assuming your wherewithal permits. Real estate is not an investment asset — it provides physical and psychological utility as a HOME first and foremost. Plus if a house appeals to you at a full price, chances are it will appeal to plenty of other people when you go to sell. Damaged goods, on the other hand, are seldom restored to their former glory.
Lastly, it amuses me that so many people are willing to dump money into depreciating assets (such as cars) but have such trouble with a small loss (read: realized depreciation) on a house. Plenty of yuppies out there have no issue drivin the Lincoln Navigator taking 50% depreciation in 3 years but couldn’t stomach half of that aggregate amount on a house that costs 10x the car. Go figure.
JMM, great comparison with car buying – it is absolutely true. Look at all of the Mercedes, BMWs, Lexi, etc. on the street. These folks are losing 40-100k and not blinking an eye. Yet, when they consider the prospect of losing 20k on a house they start shaking/crying/vomiting and act like babies. In addition, when you take a loss on a house, you get to deduct that from your income taxes (so it is even less of a loss).
Uhhh…I don’t think you can deduct a loss on a house unless it’s an investment.
“I don’t think the yuppification of north side neighborhoods is going to end anytime soon. ”
Sales volumes have fallen off a cliff. The new batch of yuppies (college educated with professional jobs) is likely far lower than it was before 4Q08. I don’t think its sustainable.
Valuations in some core areas are obviously more sustainable, especially away from entry level. But I don’t consider this area to be core at all, in fact only “green zone” in a very broad interpretation.
Also that other crap JMM said sounds like Realtorspeak(tm). Unfortunately for you JMM talking a big book won’t make it so in this economy. Hype isn’t going to work where even 4% 30yr fixed mortgages aren’t.
sorry gary, you are right – I was looking at things from my perspective again.
I actually agree w/JMM (re: continued “yuppiefication” of the north side). The population keeps growing and there are several reasons to live in Chicago – those who think that there will be a massive exodus from the city, ask yourself, “Where are they all going to go?”. While sales are down now, once the economy picks up (?1-2 years), sales will start increasing… there IS a tremendous backlog of buyers and each year, it keeps increasing….
DZ, I was trying to keep my post short and focused on the exchange between myself and the owner. I can go back and revise the post to elaborate on that point.
Suffice it to say, this home has had a lot of the work done to it already so we’d just have to add our finishing touches. It is family-friendly and we could definitely live there for a long time and raise children without growing out of the space any time soon — an imperative since gone are the days when you could easily sell a home to upgrade.
“While sales are down now, once the economy picks up (?1-2 years), sales will start increasing… there IS a tremendous backlog of buyers and each year, it keeps increasing….”
Price and the schools will keep them leaving the city. For the price of a bungalow in a “gentrifying” neighborhood on the north or west side with schools that are subpar, you can get into a top 50 high school school district (easily) in the burbs. And if you’re worried about missing the Pot Belly’s and Starbucks- yes, they have that in the suburbs too.
I’ve said this before- there isn’t much difference between Lincoln Square and downtown Oak Park in terms of restaurants and amenities (in fact, Oak Park is closer to the loop as far as the commute goes.) And I can point to a dozen other nice suburban downtowns that are similar to many north side neighborhoods with whole foods, trader joes, borders books, movie theaters, top restaurants, coffee shops, AND, quick commutes. And the housing prices are still cheaper.
Eric pointed out that you cannot ride your bike to Wrigley Field from these suburbs. Point granted. But you can’t ride your bike to Brookfield Zoo from Lincoln Square either.
It’s still so much cheaper to live in the nicer inner suburbs (and the schools so much better) that it pretty much trumps city life unless you’re in the upper bracket in income and can overcome these issues.
“Uhhh…I don’t think you can deduct a loss on a house unless it’s an investment.”
That’s right. There are no deductions for a loss on a personal residence.
Oh- one other thing that is pushing people to the suburbs is that many move-up buyers currently live in “new” 2/2 condos in the city. These have granite, stainless steel and marble baths. They are all shiny and new.
When these buyers start looking around at what their $400k will get them in the city in a single family home- they are shocked. There usually is no granite, no stainless and the houses need a lot of work.
But if you go out to the suburbs, you can find more affordable houses that don’t need quite as much work (and some have even been renovated) for $400k or below. They are too used to their granite and won’t live with anything else. You get more space and nicer finishes in the burbs (for the most part) for the same or less money.
Oak Park taxes kill that discussion every time it comes up. Those taxes are FOR LIFE, not just while your kids are in school. I’d rather live in the city and pay for private school if need be.
(That and I would like my children to grow up around black people, white people, gay people, etc instead of going to school where every other kid is wearing the same Abercrombie sweatshirt.)
(That and I would like my children to grow up around black people, white people, gay people, etc instead of going to school where every other kid is wearing the same Abercrombie sweatshirt.)
Oak Park is one of the most diverse communities in the Chicago area.
If you want diversity in the city- you are really restricted to a few select neighborhoods (sadly) – such as Hyde Park which has always been known for its diversity.
I would agree that Oak Park taxes are very high.
The North Side is definitely not going to go backwards very much given the trend for all the people to want to “move to the city.” The employment picture is still a little cloudy, but in the long-run, more people are avoiding the awful driving commutes if they can.
Oak Park (and River Forest) taxes are high, but the quality of life is high too. Housing stock is solid and architecturally interesting, tree-lined streets with sidewalks are beautiful, schools are filled with “above-average” children of white-collar professionals, and commute to Loop is relatively tolerable whether by Eisenhower, Metra, or Green/Blue lines. (Note that many OP/RF’ers commute out to suburbs too.)
We’ve friends who live in gut-rehabbed Lincoln Park rowhouse. Our taxes are same, their house is worth twice ours though our house is much larger. They have noisy college student neighbors, changing each year, rats in alley, and commute to suburban jobs. We have quiet neighbors and large landscaped yard, little street traffic, and commutes to Loop. Interior ambiences of our homes are near identical. We both drive foreign cars. We could do public school; they’ve been paying private school tuition since pre-kindergarden. I think our overall “housing, taxes + school” annual cost is significantly less than theirs. Once a buyer is willing to consider Wilmette, River Forest, Oak Park, and parts of Evanston, and actually views available property, the alternate housing choice to LP/LV/LS becomes attractive.
With Chicago’s municipal financial uncertainties, relatively high housing cost for “safe/nice/good” houses, public schools’ general low-quality performance, and perceived increase in street/property crime stats, many white-collar (and blue-collar) households will continue to move out of Chicago. Demographically speaking, as reported on WBEZ several months ago, Chicago has been losing population for years, though that loss was somewhat masked by incoming immigrant (Eastern European, Asian, and Hispanic) migration to north-side neighborhoods.
Of course the 800 lb gorilla in the suburbs vs city debate that never gets mentioned (whether due to willful denial or just plain old ignorance) is the question of energy and infrastructure. Life in the burbs won’t be quite so grand when you still have to drive everywhere and are stuck in gridlock on increasingly overcrowded highways for hours a day, all while petroleum keeps inching higher and higher and higher. But hey, at least your school is rated higher.
Also, Barry, don’t forget that living in a condo vs a house is a HUGE HUGE change. All of a sudden you are responsible for the lawn, driveway, sidewalk, gardens, general main., roof repair, window replacement, etc. Many people would GLADLY go back to paying a monthly assessment not to have to deal w/ all of this extra work!!
But Oak Park, River Forest, Evanston, and east-side Wilmette have multiple walkable (and bikable) mass transit, school, and retail choices too.
“Many people would GLADLY go back to paying a monthly assessment not to have to deal w/ all of this extra work!!”
Yeah pretty much yardwork/snow shoveling/leaf raking sucks so incredibly hard
“But Oak Park, River Forest, Evanston, and east-side Wilmette have multiple walkable (and bikable) mass transit, school, and retail choices too.”
You’re right, I wasn’t really referring to the inner-circle suburbs (not that it was evident by my post or anything), I was more referring to the suburbs that are further away that you need a car for EVERYTHING and transit is a complete joke. Go to Plainfield and you have to drive a mile just to get out of your subdivision.
Do you really want to live in the burbs when it takes 2 hours to get to your kids’ games? You probably will miss a lot more of that living way out, unless you happen to work nearby as well.
“many north side neighborhoods with whole foods, trader joes, borders books, movie theaters, top restaurants, coffee shops, AND, quick commutes. And the housing prices are still cheaper.”
I think people that value the chains like you listed likely already live in the burbs. I live in the city not for the Starbucks but the Loose Leaf Cafe’s, nightlife you don’t have to drive to (and worry about DUI), the Philly’s Best with way better subs than subway, etc.
If you love Potbelly’s, Quiznos, Subway, Starbucks and the AMC Theater Schaumburg would be a cultural paradise for you.
“I think people that value the chains like you listed likely already live in the burbs. I live in the city not for the Starbucks but the Loose Leaf Cafe’s, nightlife you don’t have to drive to (and worry about DUI), the Philly’s Best with way better subs than subway, etc.
If you love Potbelly’s, Quiznos, Subway, Starbucks and the AMC Theater Schaumburg would be a cultural paradise for you.”
Amen
I believe in chicagoland to live as close as you possibly can to your “long term” employment as it will increase the quality of your life dramatically.
Architect – I hear you on your analysis, but I literally don’t use my car now (in Wicker Park) for more than a grocery run or weekend jaunts. I just don’t see living in Oak Park as equal to Lincoln Park or any of the other north side neighborhoods. I have many friends I can just walk to, and the ability to grab a cab at all times is great.
It’s more of personal issue to get over the isolation of the suburbs – which I know as I lived there. Friends who live in various burbs all have the good home life + space + schools; the social aspect is limited to occasional gatherings at folks’ houses. In the city I can at 5 pm schedule a 7 pm dinner, even with friends with kids.
I’d love more space, but I don’t really need it. Schooling is the biggest issue in the city when choosing location as it drives costs, and I’m as of yet kid free. I think quality of life between Wicker/Bucktown/Lincoln Park & Square/LV / NorthCostCo all are pretty fungible with some personal taste differences.
One observation made from a friend who moved back from Elmhurst to Lincoln Square: in the burbs no matter the season, you walk from your house to the car, drive to where you need to go, do your business, then get back in the car. In the city you are almost forced to meet your neighbors, meet people in the neighborhood as you are out walking more. I’ll acknowledge Oak Park is more walkable than Elmhurst, and probably one of the only ‘burbs I’d consider.
/end westloopleo style posting.
“I believe in chicagoland to live as close as you possibly can to your “long term” employment as it will increase the quality of your life dramatically.”
I completely agree. It’s tough to do these days due to more transient employment prospects (wherein back in the day most people worked the same job for 30 years), but not entirely impossible to always work downtown if you’re a white collar professional type.
I just cut my commute from 1.5 hours to about 35 minutes, and it is sooooooo nice.
And I also second Bob’s statement on boutiques, cafes, restaurants. They’re there in the suburbs but they are exceptions not rules, and not densely located enough. I’d love to live in an European style city (Amsterdam / Dusseldorf) in terms of lifestyle. Chicago does give this feel in a lot of areas, which is mainly why I don’t look up in Jefferson / Irving / Oriole.
“not densely located enough.”
Nothing in the burbs is located densely enough. If you’re lucky you MIGHT be able to walk to some commercial places, however these places tend to be on major roads. I know someone who lives out in West Dundee and can walk to a gas station & McDonald’s..not quite the same..lol. Man that place is a pit.
“I just cut my commute from 1.5 hours to about 35 minutes, and it is sooooooo nice.”
good for you barry 🙂 I agree!
thirding Groove’s point on living close to your employment. my wife used to have a 45 – 60 minute drive to the burbs (she now works in the Loop), and it took her another 30+ minutes every night to unwind from the stress of the commute. then at least every other week an accident, gaper’s block, etc. made that commute 90 minutes + – no thanks.
“If you want diversity in the city- you are really restricted to a few select neighborhoods (sadly) – such as Hyde Park which has always been known for its diversity.”
I have to somewhat disagree with this one. Hyde Park is somewhat of an artificial construct due to UC, they have their own police force, etc. Definitely a nice area, but I would never call it diverse. Where I am in Avondale is pretty close to north-side diversity perfection for me. Neighbors on each side are Asian (Korean and Filipino), and obviously lots of Mexicans (as well as Guatemalan and other distinct latin american ethnicities), Polish, some aging old-school Irish, we’re getting a smattering of African-Americans and even some pioneering gay folks trekking west in search of more living space.
If we can just keep the “hipster” riff-raff out we’ll be all right. I love listening to my suburban transplant friends tell me how these people will “save” my neighborhood, as if a bunch of slack-jawed twenty-somethings are going to turn around the schools, start rehabbing old housing stock, etc. I suppose it is possible they may annoy gangbangers out of the hood.
“If you want diversity in the city- you are really restricted to a few select neighborhoods (sadly) – such as Hyde Park which has always been known for its diversity.”
Hyde Park’s walkability and amenities really don’t compare to a lot of “green zone” hoods. I used to live there and I can tell you it’s not even close. Also one neighborhood grocery store, a few crappy bars, no cinema, only a few restaurants on 53rd st. Violent crime around 53rd st as well–knew several classmates who were mugged in HP or robbed at gunpoint.
Hyde Park stinks and its low RE values reflect that (mostly). Yeah a smattering of some mansions on Woodlawn Ave and a few other places but that’s it.
“economy is so much better now”???
ahahaahhaah
Government involvement in any sector ( check college costs lately???) make for an unrealistic market
Offer 189k for this place MAX!!
if all the inspections etc checkout
lets just be clear:
From rent control on one end to FHA etc on the other end with the CRA as law, government involvement makes for an unrealistic market
Thed people who think that the city is more desirable than the suburbs are just plain wrong. Like JMM almost always is. These fools think that 10 years of a credit induced real estate bubble is going to reverse 60 years of flight from the city I’ve got a bridge to sell them in albany park. In the end it will come down to price and schools. The city has a handful of nice areas and since they rarely leave these areas they have little or no knowledge of what is going on elsewhere. I too love the city despite its major flaws, but, I’m also able to recognize that more than 50 of the areas population lives outside the city limits, and just because I like the city doesn’t means that everyone else does too.
Icarus: your blog post on this propertyh perfectly sums up why housing sales are at generational lows and prices continue to decline in most areas. Excellent post.
There is absolutly nothing wrong with looking at what the previous owner paid and how much they owe. In fact, you would be a fool to say it is not relevant or not important. The properties with wiggle room are the only properties thta sell in this market. In todays market it is one of the most important things. Buyers today are not going to bailout some underwater fb and save them from financial destruction. Buyers today are more sophisticated and pulling the wool over a potential buyers eyes ain’t going to work. No sense in wasting time on an overpriced property with large morttgages with an asking price above the bubble purchase. Most often the upgrades made the house liveable. The bubble price should have been the price with the upgrades, that’s why its not one of todays 119k crapshacks. Good lord sometimes you people are still drinking the kool aid.