Listed $230K Under the 2016 Price in the Gold Coast: A 2-Bedroom at 57 E. Delaware
This 2-bedroom on the 35th floor of The Bristol at 57 E. Delaware in the Gold Coast came on the market in October 2018.
The Bristol was built in 2000 and has 178 units, an indoor pool, and a parking garage.
At that time, it was one of the first new build “luxury” buildings and sold out quickly. Obviously, it’s now 19 years old and other buildings have gone up in the meantime.
This unit is in the preferred side of the building which is the east side and has floor to ceiling windows that over look Lake Michigan and the Hancock.
The listing says it used to be a 3-bedroom but is now a 2-bedroom with a large “great room” with the living and dining room.
It has gray wide plank wood floors.
The “dream Chef’s kitchen” has white custom cabinets (they were cherry in the 2016 sale) with an oversized storage island with breakfast bar. It has granite counter tops with a waterfall backsplash and luxury appliances including Miele, Subzero and Bosch.
It also has a bar area with a wine fridge.
The unit has a butler’s pantry and a 14×7 laundry room.
The master suite has lake views, a bathroom with a dual vanity and a walk-in-closet.
The listing also says there’s a “new” hall bath.
Originally listed at $1.4 million a year ago, it has been reduced $400,001 to $999,999.
That’s $230,000 under the 2016 sales price of $1.23 million.
Is this a deal?
Jena Radnay at @Properties has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #3502: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 2015 square feet
- Sold in July 2000 for $798,500
- Sold in September 2016 for $1.23 million
- Originally listed in October 2018 for $1.4 million
- Reduced several times
- Currently listed at $999,999 (appears to include a tandem garage parking space for 2 cars)
- Assessments of $1671 a month (includes doorman, cable, parking, clubhouse, exercise room, pool, exterior maintenance, scavenger, snow removal)
- Taxes of $23,227
- Central Air
- Washer/dryer in the unit
- Bedroom #1: 15×14
- Bedroom #2: 15×13
- Laundry room: 14×7
- Living room/dining room: 34×19
- Kitchen: 19×15
- Foyer: 19×5
I sold my Chicago condo a couple years back and left the State mainly due to rising taxes. I still read this blog every once and a while to see what chicago RE looks like. After reading a bunch of posts about RE dropping, I decided to check out some listings. Wow, things are bad and not just in Trump tower, which has been absolutely slaughtered.
Taxes up to nearly 3% here and seller is losing $100k+ on a 2009 $465k purchase
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/600-N-Lake-Shore-Dr-APT-707-Chicago-IL-60611/101341112_zpid/
Tax increases of 8% for the last three years here. Plus seller is taking a loss of $50k+ on a 2014 purchase
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/600-N-Fairbanks-Ct-UNIT-2608-Chicago-IL-60611/99346716_zpid/
Similar losses and tax increases on just about every property I see
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/110-W-Superior-St-UNIT-903-Chicago-IL-60654/119088374_zpid/
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/180-E-Pearson-St-APT-4104-Chicago-IL-60611/3851891_zpid/
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/30-E-Huron-St-APT-2308-Chicago-IL-60611/70469030_zpid/
This one is a loss after agent fees from a 2014 purchase.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/159-E-Walton-Pl-APT-7F-Chicago-IL-60611/80813577_zpid/
What’s crazy is that all these sellers are losing even if they get their ask!
“waterfall backsplash”
I’ve never heard of this term before. I assume they are just referring to the slab granite backsplash?
Could the price drop be explained below the prior price be explained by the lower marketability when changing from 3 bedrooms to 2 bedrooms?
” lower marketability when changing from 3 bedrooms to 2 bedrooms?”
It surely is part of it.
#3202 just listed at $1.5:
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/57-E-Delaware-Pl-60611/unit-3202/home/12770286
“#3202 just listed at $1.5”
Has 21% higher HOA, so has to be larger, given it is on a lower floor, and both come with 2 garage spots. Did they tack on another unit?
Base floorplans are here: https://www.bristolcondominium.com/floorplans.aspx
These are both B tier, it seems. 3202 definitely added another unit (or part of one), but not sure which tier.
An in person visit would surely clear this up, but some of the flooring appears warped in the pictures…Does anyone else see that?
Also, one of the baths needs a gut rehab…yikes on the 12″ square slate tile with the smaller tile above it. Looks like developer original finishes combined with a cheap repair job of some sort…..or it could be that I just don’t like it.
#3202
Is it just me, or are there no unit photos for 3202?
“unit photos for 3202?”
I see them.
@Marco – I haven’t heard of “waterfall backsplash” either, just waterfall countertop (which this kitchen does not have). Must be the term when the backsplash goes from bottom of upper cabinets to countertop, which is of the same material? That’s what my kitchen has, now maybe I can use this fancy new term!
RE: Prices being lower than [insert year] – I assume that will be the norm for a while, given the property tax hike? Buyers sticking to a monthly budget that will now include more taxes?
I think a lot of these faux luxury buildings are showing their age too quickly due to their slapdash construction and have lost their luster rapidly. I can name one by a prominent “faux” style architect which has major structural issues. Hence they are losing value.
“I can name one by a prominent “faux” style architect which has major structural issues.”
Which one?
I haven’t heard of any large buildings having big structural issues in a while other than those built in the late 1960s and 1970s which are now facing façade work they can’t pay for. That’s why the deconversions are passing in those building (the one in the Gold Coast on Chestnut and the one on Wells in Old Town.)
“I haven’t heard of any large buildings having big structural issues”
There is at least one built in the 80s that had a significant structural/foundation issue, but I think that it was handled confidentially, and it still isn’t what FG was referring to, as it is not a “faux” style.
“There is at least one built in the 80s that had a significant structural/foundation issue”
The 80s? Well, stuff is going to happen over 40 years.
Why don’t you just say which building?
“Why don’t you just say which building?”
My recollection was that it was handled confidentially, and I gthooi and found zero references to it, so stayed on the side of caution. There was nothing illegal involved, and I try to keep my confidences.
But it wasn’t really an “overtime” thing. It was a construction defect issue that wasn’t discovered for at least a decade.