Live in Renaissance-Inspired Splendor in Streeterville: A 3-Bedroom at 200 E. Pearson
This 3-bedroom in 200 E. Pearson in Streeterville came on the market in August 2018.
Built in 1917, it only has 10 units with just 2 units per floor. There’s no doorman or parking but there is a full-time engineer.
And there is a sign in front of the building discussing the very famous architect who called the building his home.
From Chicago Apartments: A Century of Lakefront Luxury:
The ten-apartment residence bears Renaissance-inspired details that have variously been linked to the Palazzo Strozzi in Florence and the Palazzo Farnese in Rome.
The brown brick building, with cast concrete and metal trim, is locally celebrated as the home of Mies van der Rohe, who continued living there after completing and apparently briefly contemplating moving to his Lake Shore Drive Glass Houses a few blocks away.
This unit is in the east tier and has south facing views of the park and gardens of the Museum of Contemporary Art, where there is also a weekly Farmer’s Market (when there’s no COVID-19, of course.)
The listing says this unit has refinished hardwoods, moldings and freshly painted walls.
The kitchen is “newer” with white cabinets, stainless steel appliances and a butler pantry.
All three bedrooms are en suite.
Like many vintage units it also has a full-sized dining room and a wood burning fireplace.
While it does not have central air or space pak, only window units, it does have in-unit washer/dryer.
Parking is available to rent around the corner at 221 E. Chestnut.
Originally listed at $750,000 in August 2018, it has been reduced numerous times to $619,000.
The listing now says:
* * Motived seller ready to sell! * *
This is a co-op. The taxes are included in the monthly assessment of $1451. Do those seem low?
In February of 2008, we chattered about Unit #3E in this building. 12 years ago it had assessments of $2034 a month.
See that chatter here.
With a location just a block off of Michigan Avenue, could this be a deal for a vintage lover?
Jennifer Ames at Engel & Voelkers has the listing. See the pictures and floor plan here.
Unit #4E: 3 bedrooms, 3 baths, 2177 square feet, co-op
- I don’t have a former sales price as it’s a co-op
- Originally listed in August 2018 for $750,000
- Reduced numerous times
- Currently listed at $619,000
- Assessments of $1451 a month (includes heat, gas, taxes, exterior maintenance, lawn care, scavenger, snow removal, Internet Access)
- Taxes are included in the assessment
- “motivated seller”
- No central air- window units only
- Washer/dryer in the unit
- No parking- available for rent at 221 E Chestnut
- Wood burning fireplace
- Bedroom #1: 17×14
- Bedroom #2: 14×14
- Bedroom #3: 11×9
- Living room: 25×15
- Dining room: 21×14
- Kitchen: 16×10
- Foyer: 11×7
- Pantry: 9×8
Can’t figure out why the crown isn’t butted up to the ceiling in one of the bedrooms
Would like to see one of these units that hasn’t felt the wrath of white paint on every wood surface.
The IKEA/ West Elm staging is doing this vintage beauty a terrible injustice.
Could someone point me toward a good resource that explains the advantages of co-op purchasing over condo purchasing? Initially on paper a co-ops seem like it’d provide a terrible ROI, but there’s got to be a reason that people (particularly the wealthier) still invest in co-ops over condos.
There is no advantage to a normal person to really buy into a co op. You’re basically buying shares in the corporation that are proportional to the size of your condo. Hence, the people who are *truly* rich and own huge places / multiple apartments have the majority of shares, so it’s to their benefit to live in co ops.
When it comes to literally any decision about the building, these people have all the authority. Unlike a condo building, where there is a democratic voting process with a condo board, elections, etc. You can live in a condo building and be the president of the board even if you own a studio, and the guy who owns the 5 million dollar condo has no power over you if people don’t vote for him to be on the board.
Truly no reason to buy into a co op.
“Can’t figure out why the crown isn’t butted up to the ceiling in one of the bedrooms”
there could be lighting installed there. if that is the case, seems a little odd to have it only in the second bedroom
“Can’t figure out why the crown isn’t butted up to the ceiling in one of the bedrooms”
——————————-
Leaving room to install the mirrors, IF you know what I mean AND I think you do.
5W, in a quite vintage state, sold for $560k last year:
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/200-E-Pearson-St-60611/unit-5W/home/160387673
5W HOA = $3,019, which means that either the $1,451 is wrong, or there was a *big* corporate mortgage retired.
2018 taxes for the whole thing = $147,463.65, which means ~$1200/mo/unit, which I would guess means they were backed out of the actual HOA to get the $1,451–and *that* number isn’t too bad for 2k sf, 10 units, and an engineer, including heat, water, gas, and internet.
It would be hella expensive to do the renos reasonably properly, but these profile so much better as full floor units.
Aside from the lack of central AC, this looks like an incredible bargain for the space and location. Usually a place like this would have $3,000 a month HOA. I’m a bit skeptical how it could be so low. Could there be a lot of deferred maintenance? Lack of a doorman helps, I suppose, and no garage so no parking staff. I could see myself here, but lack of views is a downside.
Tarp 25’ long, 16’ wide
Condo’s weren’t a thing until the 70’s and co-ops are a relic of the earlier era. Today’s co-ops could change to condo if they chose to by vote, but many choose not to because they value being able to hand pick their neighbors and ensure they’re in good financial standing, able to pay for their unit and maintain the building to the standards the other owners wish to. I don’t know it to be true, but a place like this could require a buyer to have 2-3 million in liquid net worth to be able to complete the purchase and join the co-op. It complicates the sales process and greatly limits the buyer pool, but people tend to stay long term and are less worried about selling. Some don’t allow mortgages at all, some do. Ours caps mortgages at 50% of selling price.
Also, it’s very likely the building has very little in reserves and the monthly assessments may not cover anything beyond the regular bills. Co-op’s often will prefer to collect special assessments when anything extraordinary is needed. The philosophy being to manage and invest your own money rather than have it sit in a low-interest account held by the corporation. You know all your neighbors are good for it.
Riz very much has the wrong ideas about co-ops in Chicago. All shareholders in a co-op are board members and they elect an executive board just like condominiums do. I doubt anyone owns a meaningful percentage of this building or any of the others in the area or on E Lake Shore Dr. Even if you owned 2 floors, it wouldn’t give you special influence, and most owners in these buildings share the sentiment that they wish them to be very well maintained, but to stay as they always have. We’re in a co-op that has an informal policy on lobby renovations. The board can do anything they’d like as long as it looks exactly the same when they are done. That’s something I value, as our building was built beautifully nearly 100 years ago and it looks exactly the same today. All the character, charm, and details are fully intact. Over all those years, I’m sure there were many opportunities to screw that up modernizing of bending to current trends, but to each his own.
Please ignore or delete the comment about the tarp. An accidental cut and paste.
“Riz very much has the wrong ideas about co-ops in Chicago. All shareholders in a co-op are board members and they elect an executive board just like condominiums do. I doubt anyone owns a meaningful percentage of this building or any of the others in the area or on E Lake Shore Dr. Even if you owned 2 floors, it wouldn’t give you special influence, and most owners in these buildings share the sentiment that they wish them to be very well maintained, but to stay as they always have”
Hey, if I’m wrong, I’m wrong (no way in he*l I’d buy in a co-op), but from what I’ve read in the news, on here, and other blogs, what I said is how a co-op typically works.
Was it on here we talked about a co-op where the lower shareholder unit owners had to simply walk away from their units with nothing in hand because they couldn’t afford the special assessment the board assigned to all units for a condo conversion (or something along those lines), I think it was in Hyde park.
Yeah the co-ops is hyde park are in huge trouble, but those are big buildings with many units. Anyone walking away with nothing did so because the whole building voted that way, not a few majority owners.
The problem down there is the units lost so much value and sold for so little, that they could no longer attract people that could afford to maintain them.
Personally, I would much prefer the condo structure, but was trying to explain the appeal to some. What attracted me to a co-op was getting a full floor apt in a 100 year old building, with all the original details. It was also far less expensive than newer construction, albeit with very high monthly expenses. I made a spreadsheet, modeled the whole thing out relative to single family homes, newer large apartments, etc and decided it worked best for me financially, at least at the price I paid.
“I doubt anyone owns a meaningful percentage of this building or any of the others in the area or on E Lake Shore Dr.”
A friend of mine used to own in one of the co-ops on N. LSD, and actually had a sale fall through because the person was trying to buy multiple units (I think 2 that would work for that were available at the time) and turn them into one, and they decided they didn’t want anyone to do that. Don’t know if that’s out of the ordinary, however. (The potential buyer was extremely wealthy so it wasn’t a financial issue.)
I get the appeal of some of the co-op buildings (I like beautiful vintage buildings), and why someone might put up with a co-op for that reason. Also, having lived in a smaller condo building for a long time, being on the board, let alone president, isn’t a perk, it’s a nightmare that you have to beg people to do often — you get stuck with extra work, and (as president) you also get to be the person neighbors want to resolve disputes and have to break bad news about needed expenses to people, and that’s assuming everyone else does care about maintenance. And I also would personally prefer specials to higher assessments/large reserves IF one could assume everyone could swing it, as in a co-op.
But I still wouldn’t buy in a co-op since I just wouldn’t like the need to get board approval to buy or to be able to sell. (But it’s also true I’ve never wanted to own in a large elevator building anyway, and ultimately preferred the tradeoffs for a house, even though that means no shared expenses and no view and much farther from the lake, and in a lot of ways less historical charm. People just have different priorities and I understand why for some the co-op would be worth it.)