Is Location Enough Anymore In This Market? 1853 N. Lincoln Avenue in Lincoln Park
Everyone knows this building which sits at the corner of Lincoln Avenue and Wisconsin in Lincoln Park.
This 2-bedroom duplex at 1853 N. Lincoln has been on the market since March 2012.
It previously sold just two years earlier.
At 1100 square feet, it has its own private entrance and the listing says it feels like townhouse.
The kitchen has maple cabinets and a mixture of white and stainless steel appliances.
Both bedrooms are on the second level.
It has central air but doesn’t have in-unit laundry or parking.
The listing says it has an “amazing location.”
Is that even enough anymore to make a sale with buyers so price conscious?
Laura Langer at Chicago Apartments and Condo has the listing. (It’s agent owned.) See the pictures here.
Unit #1D: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1100 square feet
- Sold in September 1996 for $154,000
- Sold in March 1999 for $198,000
- Sold in April 2010 for $260,000
- Originally listed in March 2012 for $295,000
- Reduced
- Currently listed at $280,000
- Assessments of $254 a month
- Taxes of $4869
- Central Air
- No in-unit washer/dryer (coin laundry)
- No parking
- Bedroom #1: 18×12 (second floor)
- Bedroom #2: 14×8 (second floor)
realtors should leave investing up to the pros. case in point—this “townhouse”
It’s the “no parking” that’s killing it. This is a VERY congested part of LP. Even though there are plenty of buses nearby for the commute to work, if you want to have a car for going out, etc. It can be a real challenge.
As for the coin laundry, that would not be a deal-breaker for me but would be for others.
Ah, the “Motivated seller” who expects 10%+ appreciation for living in a 2/2 from 2010-2012.
And then backs off ask 5%, 4 months into the listing.
We all have our motivations, I guess. . .
“No in-unit washer/dryer (coin laundry) ” If I own a place, I expect to have in-unit washer dryer. If the building infrastructure cannot support that, then I expect access to non-coin operated machines. Factor it into my assessment but don’t make me hoard quarters.
This asking price doesn’t seem unreasonable given the last sale, but the pictures in this listing I think are definitely hurting it. The place looks dark and blah. Location alone will not sell a place, especially without parking and laundry and natural light.
“Feels like a townhome” ‘s basement, maybe. Nice location, but no parking and laundry sucks for most people.
at 280k they have got to be smoking something. I dont see anything that has been updated since April 2010 it actually look like the 1999 buyer did the updates in 1999-2000.
if i was 20 something i would love to rent this for $1200 a month, for the location.
“As for the coin laundry, that would not be a deal-breaker for me but would be for others.”
“If I own a place, I expect to have in-unit washer dryer. If the building infrastructure cannot support that, then I expect access to non-coin operated machines.”
Absolute deal breaker for me. Perhaps this would fare better as an investment property, renting it out to some 20-somethings that want to be in the area. But I don’t see any angle that makes this attractive at $280M for a serious buyer.
This is college housing. The land is more valuable than the building. This leads me to a question I have always wondered about…. what do you do when old buildings have increasing assessments and lesser value b/c they no longer have modern amenities preferred by buyers. Think about all of the yucky white high rises that line LSD in north Lincoln Park and Lakeview. Or the highrise on Hampton that is essentially a rental building for new college grads. At some point, the land and ability to build a new highrise in that same location is more valuable than the existing buildng. How would someone ever sell/buy a whole building? In the past, small buildings like 6-flats were replaced by highrises and this was simple. But how do you replace an antiquated high rise whose apartments sell for 200-300K with a new highrise with units over 1 millinon? Will this happen or will wealthier chicagoans move west or to S, Loop/Hyde Park where the high rises fronting the lake are larger, and more archtecturally pleasing?
Wait it’s college housing? Or is it workforce housing? What was it built for in the early 20th Century?
Even if it had a washer/dryer and parking, this price seems too high. While it’s not entirely clear, it looks like this a duplex down, with the bottom windows abutting the sidewalk. I wouldn’t want all those feet stomping around outside my living room. The pictures also give the impression that the unit is very claustrophobic and dark. No thanks…
@a local, I think wealthy Chicagoans are going to move to Naperville to get their architecturaly fix.
Good question a local.
Gary Lucido might know for certain. I would venture a guess it would require a large group of investors with deep pockets to find the right building where maybe the majority of the units are REOs and can be bought relatively cheaply and buy out the few stable owned units.
New York, July 31, 2012 – Data through May 2012, released today by S&P Dow Jones Indices for its
S&P/Case-Shiller1 Home Price Indices, the leading measure of U.S. home prices, showed that average
home prices increased by 2.2% in May over April for both the 10- and 20-City Composites.
http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldocumentfile&blobtable=SPComSecureDocument&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3Ddownload.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1245337692985&blobheadervalue3=abinary%3B+charset%3DUTF-8&blobnocache=true
No comments on the Case Shiller index yet? On a deseasonalized basis it’s the largest monthly increase in 24 years.
Doesn’t fit the meme Gary.
I am also curious as to the answer to a local’s question. What does happen to the old, ugly highrises? They are all over NYC too. Do they just stay there forever?
This unit looks like the living room, dining room, Kitchen are in the basement… nothing more than college/new grad housing. Also, that 2nd bedroom looks tiny and has that odd staircase protruding into it, limiting its functionality. No W/D, no parking… nothing like a townhouse
“Vote Saved. New Rating: -2”
What, Naperville isn’t filled with fucking gorgeous architecture?
no way in hell this is 1100sqft
The old downtown part of naperville actually does have some nice architecture
“No comments on the Case Shiller index yet? On a deseasonalized basis it’s the largest monthly increase in 24 years.”
Wow, all the way back to January and still a YOY decline. Shake that money maker!
“Doesn’t fit the meme Gary.”
LOL, the meme is the “recovery.” Haven’t you heard the shills?
LOL, the meme is the “recovery.”
Not on CC.
I think before you see any of the highrise condos torn down, you’re going to see that issue with some of the 1950’s to early 60’s “four plus ones” in Lakeview, etc. I think it would take, in most cases, far more than a majority of unit owners—possibly unanimity–to do something like that. It would be very hard for someone to negotiate purchases on a unit by unit basis. And, to do a “bulk sale” of units where there are 50, let alone several hundred units, people will have very different interests in selling out now vs. later, what they think their place is worth, etc. You may have one owners whose unit hasn’t been touched in years & needs major work, who would be very happy to get $x for their unit, and someone else with an almost identical unit, who thinks it’s worth 2x because they recently put in a high end kitchen & baths. Also, some older people may have no desire to move, etc.
a local (July 31, 2012, 9:06 am)
. what do you do when old buildings have increasing assessments and lesser value b/c they no longer have modern amenities preferred by buyers. Think about all of the yucky white high rises that line LSD in north Lincoln Park and Lakeview.
“Not on CC.”
Realtrolls, FB’s and recent buyers outnumber the bears here. Only a few of them don’t believe in the “housing recovery.” It’s easy to believe anything when it benefits your financial position.
“Realtrolls, FB’s and recent buyers outnumber the bears”
Which are you counting HD as?
I’m also curious to see what will happen with those old, ugly highrises. My grandparents lived in one on Sheridan. It was billed as “luxury” when my grandparents bought it in the 70s. 35 years later, it sold for only $20k more than they bought it for… At a certain point, the assessments will be so high as to make the condos even more worthless than they are now… not sure what is going to happen.
“Which are you counting HD as?”
Well, he’s not a realtor and too smart with his money to become a FB. Now can you guess?
Yep, at least east of Broadway for sure. Boggles my mind that so many of those survived the boom of the early Aughts (Oughts? which is it?).
Neighboring land values, common sense and a loosey-goosey culture of zoning increases for campaign donations suggest 4+1 buildings in an area surrounded by high-rise housing will eventually ripen for the picking. How do you ultimately deny a developer when he can point on both sides of the property and call out precedent? It’s why those fracking cinder block monstrosities were so destructive, every one which was built was used to make the case for 2 more. Very successfully, obviously. Call it “Zoning Creep.”
“think before you see any of the highrise condos torn down, you’re going to see that issue with some of the 1950?s to early 60?s “four plus ones” in Lakeview, etc.”
“Now can you guess?”
That’s why I asked the question. I know the phrasing wasn’t too opaque for you.
“the early Aughts (Oughts? which is it?).”
You ought to call them the Aughts.
I prefer “naughts”
“It was billed as “luxury” when my grandparents bought it in the 70s.”
I’ve never really understood the concept of a highrise luxury condominium, as it seems like an oxymoron to me – kinda like a ‘luxury’ trailer park, and I’m not referring to the one in Malibu. The whole condo concept in the US isn’t really that old (conceived in the 60’s or something like that), and they were intended to allow average folks buy a slice of the pie, but their long term fate has yet to be played out.
I suppose buying a non-luxuary highrise condo made sense for average wage earners in places like Sandberg Terrace when they were converted from rentals, as the idea was that your rent money would basically equal your mortgage, and at the end of your stay you’d at least have some equity as opposed to your ‘gone forever’ rent money; I had a relative who lived there in the 70’s on a secretary’s salary, and that was exactly her case as was with her neighbors. Doesn’t sound so bad for a new building with few problems (back then anyway), but that was before before monthly assessments, taxes, special assessments, neighbor foreclosures, flipping, and the pure age of the building could eat you and your equity alive as they can/do today. When I read what the monthly nut is on a typical downtown highrise condo (minus the mortgage *and* inevitable forthcoming special assessments)… damn, I maintain a SF for less than that, soup to nuts.
Maybe a a few wealthy condo highrises and their owners can just buy/assess their way out of problems, but to me the ‘luxury’ of ownership isn’t so much in the unit itself, but rather by owning the land on which it sits… like the trailer park in Malibu.
“damn, I maintain a SF for less than that, soup to nuts”
C’mon, Jay, either you’re lying or you don’t do any exterior maintenance. *everyone* knows that gardening and shoveling alone is over $100/week. Nevermind window washing, and fresh flowers and vacuuming the sidewalk.
[but seriously, are you assuming roof/tuckpointing/mechanical replacement equivalents are covered by specials, exclusively?]
Jay probably likes to pay $2850 for a two bedroom apartment.
“I’m also curious to see what will happen with those old, ugly highrises. My grandparents lived in one on Sheridan. It was billed as “luxury” when my grandparents bought it in the 70s. 35 years later, it sold for only $20k more than they bought it for… At a certain point, the assessments will be so high as to make the condos even more worthless than they are now… not sure what is going to happen.”
I’ve been wondering the same thing. First, I imagine that these units essentially become rentals at some point. You pay virtually nothing to buy them and your high assessments are essentially rent, covering the building’s expenses.
But as for taking over the building…not sure how that could be done. You’d have to buy the units sequentially but then the prices would start to go up. Could you strike a deal with the city to condemn the building? Could you make an offer to the whole building?
“Could you strike a deal with the city to condemn the building? Could you make an offer to the whole building?”
I bet we see Eminent Domain in this direction. . .
“I bet we see Eminent Domain in this direction. . .”
Did Illinois not pass a restriction on its use in the post-Kelo reaction against eminent domain?
Better than the “coach house” in the alley behind Armitage nearby.
‘C’mon, Jay, either you’re lying or you don’t do any exterior maintenance. *everyone* knows that gardening and shoveling alone is over $100/week.’
Seriously? $100 a week to maintain a ‘garden’ about the size of a studio apartment? $100 a week to shovel the front of your house… 25 ft at best? I’m in the wrong business. Anyone ever heard of doing chores yourself, because it’s your house? I mean, it’s not like I’m digging a ditch every weekend.
No question a house means *constant* upkeep, but it isn’t like a new roof or tuckpointing is a yearly thing. Interior ‘things’ beak/need attention in a house just as often as in apartment… appliances, floor scratches, remodeling, etc., and you can pay someone to paint your living room as much as you like in either, so all bets are off there. But… if I allocated myself say $1200+ a month, every month whether I spend it or not, on house maintenance (ac repair, bit of window painting, gutter work) verses what I’d pay in ‘luxury’ building assessments, I’d be ahead of the game. Seriously. The trick is to address a potential exterior problem as soon as you see it, that takes time and energy to even care (why apartment living is so appealing even to me on that level), and to pay for *quality* work when you do need something done… quality work and materials last, and maybe I just have an excellent black book. Damn, either I’ve living in an indestructible brick shit house, or everyone else is living in a crap shack.
Gary: A recent article in Crain’s addressed issue of assembling condo units stating: “..The building’s condo association, which is controlled by the Marc venture, has sued the holdouts, citing language in the association’s governing documents and state law that allow it to force them to sell if a supermajority of owners approve the sale of the entire building…”
I don’t know if this is true in all cases or only where language in declarations etc addresses this issue.
Read more: http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/article/20120717/CRED0701/120719811/investor-sues-to-force-condo-owners-to-sell#ixzz22E4p4vIl
“Did Illinois not pass a restriction on its use in the post-Kelo reaction against eminent domain?”
Yup, restricted, but still allowed.
I have utmost faith in our leaders’ ability to show valuable lakefront property to be blighted / condemnable by clear and convincing evidence.
So it’s still *ahem* eminently possible.
“Seriously?”
Not the first half, but the second was. Most of the higher assessment buildings are including either reserves for capex type things, or paying off a capex type thing. So, I think it’s closer than it seems, especially when you consider the need (in most buildings) to use union labor for everything (yes, I did see the rat next to Marina City this AM).
“Seriously?”
Also my assessments inlcude heat, air, gas (stove/dryer), fitness center, pool, cable television, internet,
heated garage. All this shit adds up, that being said still more expensive than home ownership.
“Yup, restricted, but still allowed.
I have utmost faith in our leaders’ ability to show valuable lakefront property to be blighted / condemnable by clear and convincing evidence.”
But (w/o even looking) isn’t the restriction about using eminent domain for private benefit? How do you get a high-end residential building built in those circumstances? Sure, they’d be able to pull it off for the Olympic Village, but short of that, what’s the angle? (yeahyeah, submit a crappy bid, start the condemnation process, “oops, didn’t get it”, have suddnely “excess” land to sell to private developers. I mean *other* than that)
Southbound, thanks for posting that article.