Live Across From Wicker Park in this Vintage 2-Bedroom: 1945 W. Schiller
By popular request for Roma, this 2-bedroom at 1945 W. Schiller in Wicker Park recently came on the market.
Roma thought these were always apartments.
Now’s your chance Roma!
Located directly on the park, the vintage unit has 12 foot ceilings and crown molding.
There is a new kitchen with stainless steel appliances and the contemporary aesthetic.
The listing also says there are new baths.
It doesn’t have parking, or central air or an in-unit washer/dryer.
Will the location sell this property?
Renate Martin at @Properties has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #1: 2 bedrooms, 1.5 baths, no square footage listed
- Sold in October 2002 for $80,000
- Currently listed for $320,000
- Assessments of $246 a month
- Taxes of $1290
- No central air- window units only
- No in-unit washer/dryer
- No parking
- Bedroom #1: 17×7
- Bedroom #2: 13×7
This is cute….for 75K! Good luck sellers!
Is that an historic tax freeze or a typo? I think it looks fun. Never did that exact stretch of Damen…too crowded and random. Any word on the giant mansion right on the corner? Must have some type of issues to be sitting so long.
“Any word on the giant mansion right on the corner? Must have some type of issues to be sitting so long.”
We saw it some time back. It needs a total gut rehab, although it has some absolutely gorgeous vintage details (fireplaces, tons of woodwork and plasterwork, multiple double parlors). IIRC, it was built for a sea-captain’s daughter and the rest of the family lived next door. It thus shares water with that house, which has to be fixed, don’t recall how much, but it was pricey and the buyer will not be able to continue the shared water arrangement. Kitchen needs to be gutted. Second floor has an odd layout after the double parlors with a really…. um, intersting labryinth of rooms constituting what I will have to call a bathroom suite that I think culminated in a room-size whirlpool. The entire upper floor is a warren of carpeted bedrooms that needed a lot of work. Generally, a grande dame in need of major, major work, new mecnhicals, and who knows what else, but with some fabulous original features that I hope get retained by whoever purchases it. It had quite the air of decayed grandeur and was really neat to see. I’m sorry to say this, but if you have the kind of money needed for this home, I don’t think you’d purchase here, which is really too bad as it really was an interesting property with some lovely and very unique vintage features.
Really….both bedrooms only 7 feet? I used to live in a vintage place and my closets were bigger than that.
david – $75k? Surely you could rent this to two wannabe-artist roommates for $1400 or so.
anyway, if it were priced more reasonably, it would be interesting to see the effect of how it looks. def looks like the current owner is a designer (pro or amateur).
also, I believe this is the first time I have ever been mentioned in a Cribchatter post. Thanks Sabrina!
To commemorate this occasion, I move that henceforth, we consider the last Friday before Easter Good Roma Day.
What? It’s already…
…And…
…And that’s why hardly anyone’s here noticing, because…
Awww shucks!
I like this spot, but the general impression I get is amateur artist type as current resident. The paint, the wallpaper, that collage, those heads on the shelves, etc. The paint is especially egregious.
For a vintage place with a formal dining room, the kitchen is relatively large. Not crazy about the cabinets, not really in keeping with the vintage character of the house. Ditto the modern bathroom.
Still, nice and normal vintage features, door casings, molding, etc. The width of the bedrooms is not terrible, common to have narrow bedrooms in older places where the rooms are off common spaces, as opposed to a railroad style with rooms of a hallway.
No WD, parking, CAC, sounds much more like an apartment. Same issue with 1.5 baths, though all of my friends in SF who own would murder someone for that extra half bath. SF, land of $750k 2 + 1s, even post bubble.
The location is great, though train noise might be an issue if you are sensitive to that sort of thing.
This is not $320k, though not sure how low it should be.
This shows ultra nice and I think it looks like a pro but not for $320k without parking. But what a great tax bill to pay each year!
is this the highest premium over 2002 we’ve seen?
“SF, land of $750k 2 + 1s, even post bubble.”
I will never understand how they do it out there, that sleepy little town of 700,000 people, it has far less jobs than Chicago, a way smaller financial district/downtown, and it’s not like the city dwellers all work in Mountain View cleaning up on tech stock options. You have so many transplants that end up in SF, how do they get up to speed? and then afford housing at $750 psf? NYC, I can see how they do it, they have Wall Street and it’s a world class city, LA is too, but tiny little SF? I don’t get it, does anyone else?
For an area that “gentrified” 20 years ago, Wicker Park itself still has lots of shady characters roaming it, homeless, dudes w/ shopping carts, etc. The corner of the park directly across from this unit, is the magnet for all of them. The north side corner has the kids playground and the bums aren’t tolerated over there, the other corner is a dog park, so the homeless and bums all gravitate to this corner instead.
“LA is too, but tiny little SF? I don’t get it, does anyone else?”
Almost all of California is suburbia except for a small part called SF? For those seeking an urban experience in Cali, there isn’t much to choose from (it’s not like downtown LA is hopping).
Looks like a cute place, but the color scheme and furniture make me think the owner was ‘shrooming.
@Jason – shows no exemptions at all, it’s just assessed really low, estimated market value of $75k. So, if the seller is right, it’s drastically underassessed. If david is right, it’s perfect.
It is sufficient. Are you planning to play football in your bathroom? : )
Actually, I think the layout is nice as the kitchen and the bath. I would just repaint the place to less flashy colors, but that might be just my minimalist taste.
“Really….both bedrooms only 7 feet? I used to live in a vintage place and my closets were bigger than that.”
“NYC, I can see how they do it, they have Wall Street and it’s a world class city, LA is too, but tiny little SF? I don’t get it, does anyone else?”
In SF they all rent. The rental percentage is something like 70% in the city of San Francisco because so few can afford to buy. And don’t forget about rental control. It’s one of the few cities in the country that has it. So some people live in their rentals for 20 to 30 years. I knew someone who lived in a 3-bedroom in a very nice neighborhood and paid only $875 a month because he had been there 17 years. Why would he buy something? He couldn’t afford it anyway.
It becomes much more difficult once you have a family though (but I knew someone raising 2 kids in a 600 square foot cottage with no backyard. The kids played in the garage.)
I’d get rid of all that color too, I think the kitchen and bathroom fixtures would look much better against neutral decor.
Just one question…. why on Earth would a family or group of the size that could comfortably inhabit this place outfit the kitchen with what looks like a 40 cub.ft. refrigerator? That thing is a MONSTER power guzzler, even if it has the Energy Star.
Just wondering.
Ah…because they have to put all those sodas, beers and frozen pizzas some where, don’t they? ; )
Hip and stylish?
LOL…OK maybe for the homeless dudes from the park.
What were the ‘designers’ thinking…further, why would anyone consider whoever came up with this place a designer?
westloopelo, because there a many terrible designers out there. But, to be honest, except the eccentric colors this is a pretty normal home nothing crazy or over the top if you paint it all white or some other subdued color.
@ Dan
If SF is anything like NY, they’re willing to spend more on urban living than Midwestern folks are. I’ve posted this before, but the employees in our NY office don’t make *that* much more than those in the Chgo office. However, most there dress better (they spend more on expensive/polished cloths), attend more cultural events, and eat out more mid-week than here. They have smaller apartments that cost more, and have less stuff in need of storage. But, as long as people here find fault in this nicely located gem of a vintage apartment that’s indicative of city living, don’t expect this one to fly off the shelf like it would in NY… or perhaps SF. It’s an ‘attitude’ Chicago lacks, as this place makes some urbanites drool, transients ponder, and the majority of on-lookers use to justify 3 hours on the Kennedy despite higher by the day fuel prices… as they drive to and from their split level.
It’s funny – this place has the same “bones” as the double parlors on Chester Square in Boston – where I lived in the mid/late 90s:
http://www.redfin.com/MA/Boston/534-Massachusetts-Ave-02118/unit-3/home/9287238
You could totally change the subject property and make it look like the above unit (for about 100k). However, you have to look at the neighborhood, etc. and decide whether or not it would be worth it. It was definitely worth it for me in Boston.
No comments on all the Ikea cabinets and counters?
Is some white collar worker earning ~80k (no small feat in today’s economy) going to mortgage their future paying exorbitant appreciation to some artist-type who bought this place for 80k only nine years ago?
I think not. I ask myself: could the current owner afford this place at 320k? Probably not. Has Wicker Park improved so much to justify 300% appreciation in nine years? Nope.
This owner thinks they’re a real estate mogul gunning for 16.6% annualized appreciation sine 2002. I suppose having an ostrich hole to put one’s head in helps with selling strategies like these.
”
# No central air- window units only
# No in-unit washer/dryer
# No parking”
LOL this is an apartment not a 320k condo. 150k tops for this place, if that.
So what if the cabinets are Ikea. They still look much nicer than any thing in home depot to me. I will take Swedish design and even manufacturing any day over what you find in HD. The deal breaker at this price point is lack of W/D. I can live without a car and window units suffice for me, but no W/D?!
I’m a big IKEA fan too (in the right property.) I love those red cabinets they have.
Glad to hear Ikea isn’t loathed! I’ll now go return the pedestal sink I bought last week, and go buy the slightly damamged set I saw at Ikea yesterday for $200. Not that I’ll ever be selling my ghetto manse in my lifetime, anyhow.
I agree. Also it makes no sense to pay 50K to update the kitchen in a 150K property after all. I like these ones:
http://www.helpful-kitchen-tips.com/kitchen-blog/2010/07/29/ikea-kitchen-cabinets-cost-buying-tips-assembling-and-installing/
“If SF is anything like NY…” not to veer OT too much, but that was my point. SF is nothing like NYC, it has far less jobs, far less good jobs, is puny compared to even Chicago, there are far less cultural events than even in Chicago, many of the good jobs and Bay Area wealth is down the peninsula…..so I’m still wondering how the people in a relative backwater, smallish city like SF have prices per sf close to NYC. I still don’t know how they afford it, NYC one can somewhat figure it out, but foggy, sleepy, small SF? I don’t get it.
“..but foggy, sleepy, small SF? I don’t get it.”
Maybe it has something to do with 15% of the people having more disposable income, not having to send their kids to private schools?
Dan, SF is expensive because it is a nice place to live with a lot of money floating around. It’s not a family town type of place. It’s a wealthy enclave. And of course, the $729,000 conforming limit along with the non-recourse PMSI first mortgage helped a lot too; and so did California’s preeminent position as the world’s leader in Option ARM mortgages.
SF will soon fall too but don’t ever think it will be too cheap. It’s surrounded by water on three sides and has only a handful of decent neighborhoods and even then, due to earth quakes, they don’t really build up.
San Francisco is expensive because (1) it is a small city with a limited housing supply; (2) people want to live there; (3) there are high paying jobs there.
San Francisco has always been a wealthy place, even before the tech boom. Lots of hedge funds, private equity shops, investment banks, consultancies, law firms, etc.
The public schools in San Francisco are terrible, btw, so not like the residents are saving money there.
Regarding the sophistication of San Francisco, I will put it second only to New York for US cities. The people I know there are generally well educated, well traveled, well read, well versed in the arts, and knowledgeable about food and wine. I am not sure I agree that there are far less cultural events than in Chicago, though I will say that theatre and museums in Chicago are head and shoulders above SF.
This might be off, but I have noticed in San Francisco, like New York, people tend to get married later and have families later. Most of my friends in Chicago are married and having children, none of my friends in SF or NY are. And children are expensive. So perhaps money that otherwise would be going to little Johnny’s college fund goes to fueling demand in the city.
“San Francisco has always been a wealthy place, even before the tech boom. Lots of hedge funds, private equity shops, investment banks, consultancies, law firms, etc.”
In the 1970s and 1980s? Not really. You could live on the peninsula in one of the 1950s tract houses for pretty cheap. I know someone who was a teacher who easily bought a lovely house in Mill Valley for what you’d pay anywhere else- in the 1970s.
It’s only since the mid-1990s that the prices have moved up from 3x income to 10x income (or more.)
The legal and financial communities were not big there before the 1990s. There was Bank of America and Schwab and the Pacific Exchange but compared to NY or Chicago- it was puny. Same with the large law firms. Only 3 or 4 “big” firms in the early 1990s. Almost no one was down in Silicon Valley. Now, there are 800 person law firms headquartered in Silicon Valley with 500 lawyers in those offices.
It’s really sad what’s happened to the bay area in the last 20 years. “Normal” people cannot live there. A few years ago there was a story about a Palo Alto school teacher living in his car (would take showers in his gym) because he couldn’t afford to even rent a place. Also, Cisco was going to build housing for school teachers so they would have a place to live. Oh- there have also been articles about how Bay Area hospitals can’t attract doctors because they can’t afford to live there. And nurses? Forget it.
Generation X and Y’ers in the Bay Area spend ALL their money on housing. Few have retirement savings, outside savings or can save money for college for their kids. Up until a few years ago, they drank the kool-aid, believing that housing would NEVER go down (this was California, after all) and that if they didn’t get in, they never would. That has muted a bit. But they mainly still believe in the cult of housing.
“But they mainly still believe in the cult of housing”
That is because they are smart…. I moved to Atherton in 2000 (right after the tech bubble burst) and I was told real estate was at a “low point”. “Low point” to people in California means that a crappy 5 million dollar house was now 4.5 million. I have followed Atherton real estate since and prices have NOT significantly gone down (sure that 4.5 million dollar house went to 4million) – but you get my drift…. housing IS expensive in SF and CAN be extremely lucrative if you buy at the right time, put a little time/ effort/money into renovating – you could make millions doing this. The problem is that you have to have the capital to start.
For those of you not familiar with Atherton, here is a typical house (take note of the price):
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Atherton/2-Bergesen-Ct-94027/home/1361545
No, Clio. They are stupid to spend 50% to 70% of their income on housing. It’s not sustainable.
That state is a mess. It will never return to its former glory- mainly because the public schools went from being #1 in the nation in the 1960s to placing just above Mississippi.
Every city is not Atherton (for those of you wondering- Atherton is like Hinsdale.) For every person who bought in Atherton there is someone who bought in East Palo Alto or Vallejo or any number of other crappy cities. But they are forced to buy there if they are middle class.
Again- I get tired of talking about the top 1% of the population. That is not everyone else. Regular middle class people just want somewhere nice to live to raise their family, get to work easily, enjoy the neighborhood etc. Who cares what 1% of the population is doing?
If we have no middle class which can live the American Dream- then the whole country suffers. That is why I so enjoy Chicago and its real estate. You CAN live well here on much less income. And you’ll have money left over to go on vacations, save for retirement, buy the nice car etc. It’s a much better lifestyle here with all of the great big city amenities.
Lots of gays in SF (if the stereotypes are true), which means more disposable income. Also let’s not forget faghags (ie: Stacy London) don’t tend to reproduce either = more disposable income.
“Lots of gays in SF (if the stereotypes are true), which means more disposable income.”
No more so than other major cities Bob. And don’t you read the news? Many same sex couples are having kids now. So I don’t see how that means they have more disposable income. And for those that don’t have kids, it’s really no different than any other Generation X or Y couple (DINKS.)
“And don’t you read the news? Many same sex couples are having kids now. So I don’t see how that means they have more disposable income”
The news is going to over-exaggerate things for shock effect. I’d be willing to bet the median/mean number of children for a gay couple and a straight couple are significantly different.
And again I was basing my speculation on my impression that SF has lots of gays due to stereotypes. I’ve never been there and have no real desire to go. Why anyone would feel comfortable living in a city that was demolished less than a century ago due to a massive quake is beyond me.
Bob – I think many gay people lived in SF in the 60s-90s and that is where it got its reputation – but since the country has become more open-minded and accepting of gays everywhere, the gay-havens have (and are) going by the wayside. I think we are seeing more gay people moving out to traditionally “straight” neighborhoods.
“And again I was basing my speculation on my impression that SF has lots of gays due to stereotypes. I’ve never been there and have no real desire to go. Why anyone would feel comfortable living in a city that was demolished less than a century ago due to a massive quake is beyond me.”
A big gay population grew in SF partly because of the city’s radical 60’s, partly because of some pioneering gay businessmen and politicians, partly because it was one of the only options west of the Hudson River, and partly because the Castro was well suited geographically to harboring a distinct minority population (some might call that a ghetto, others call it a haven).
Anyways, Bob, I can’t fault you for not wanting to live in SF, given the earthquakes and housing costs. But the next time you want to take a trip for a few days, fly to SF. Rent a car and spend a night in the city, then head out an explore the Bay Area, including Pacifica and Half Moon Bay, and consider spending the night in Santa Cruz, or drive down to Carmel, or up to Mendicino. SF and the general two-hour coastal driving vicinity is pretty much the most mind-blastingly spectacular area in this entire country.
“SF and the general two-hour coastal driving vicinity is pretty much the most mind-blastingly spectacular area in this entire country.”
I agree – very few things in my life compared with driving down 280 from SF to Atherton at 1-3 AM in a convertible – no traffic and just the beauty of nature.
I used to go to SF often as my best friend went to grad school in Berkeley. It is a beautiful city and has a lot of art and culture. In fact, some of the small theatrical productions are way more interesting than what you find in Chicago. Of course our lyric opera is way better. The quality of food is much better in SF IMHO, partly because of huge Asian population and partly because of the general more healthy Cali life style. That being said, the weather is not my favorite at all. The cold ocean water, the chilly nights which are not still cold enough to warrant a full winter wardrobe kind of sucks to me. And then there is the fact that it takes for ever to travel to east cost and cross Atlantic.
@ Sabrina: No, San Francisco has always been expensive:
San Francisco: http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/san_francisco.html
Chicago: http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/chicago.html
Los Angeles: http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/los_angeles.html
Average home price in SF metro area in 1987, $200,000; Chicago, $85,000; Los Angeles, $125,000.
When I was talking about San Francisco being wealthy, I was talking about San Francisco proper, not Marin or the Peninsula. Yes, the wealth that has been generated by the tech boom has turned well to do cities in the Bay Area (Palo Alto, Atherton) into very affluent cities. I know a number of families who own houses in the Peninsula that are nice, normal houses that now command multi million dollar price tags. But all of those families who bought in the seventies and eighties were still well to do, scientists, professors, lawyers. I don’t think school teachers were buying three bedroom homes in Palo Alto during those years.
And I agree that the middle class is being squeezed out of formerly middle class cities like San Bruno and Redwood City because of the new wealth in the Bay Area. You could say the same thing about neighborhoods in Manhattan or Brooklyn, or maybe any major metropolitan area. The standard of living for the middle class has been declining for quite some time.
Finally, I agree with you that Chicago is a world class city for a fraction of the costs of the coasts. But there have always been, and always will be, people with the means who are willing to pay the premium to be on the coasts.
@ miumiu, are you talking about the Berkeley Rep? That is a very interesting place but one of the very few theatrical highlights in San Francisco. Also, re: opera, the San Francisco Opera is the second largest in the country, behind the Metropolitan Opera, but I have never been to the Lyric Opera in Chicago. If you have any recommendations for this season, I would love to hear them. P.S., I’m no opera buff, so take it easy on me, nothing too advanced!
Well I am not a buff either, the hubby is. But, what I like more about the lyric is that it has much more modern interpretations. For instance, I thought this past season’s production of Hercules was amazing. We are done for the season, but you can definitely buy some of the next season’s tickets. Don’t know when they go for sale for general public but we have season tickets so we could have renewed as early as February. Actually, I did not renew for next season as we have are having a baby and I won’t have a sitter in Chicago.
BTW, my husband actually gets pissed with the modern interpretations. He likes old school alla Scala renditions. But, I love the way lyric innovates. You might find this link useful:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/07/lyric-operas-hercules-pet_n_832363.html
As for the next season’s you might want to listen to Sir Andrew Davis’s introduction rather than my bs : )
http://www.lyricopera.org/watchandlisten/index.aspx?tab=1#audio_ctl00_ctl00_bodyContentArea_bodyContentArea_content1_ctl00_Repeater5_ctl00_Repeater5_ctl01
SFO-ORD: Are we talking about SF proper? I don’t think it cost you 4x the average income to buy in Noe Valley, the Sunset or the Richmond in the 1980s or the early 1990s. I have friends who have “normal” jobs who easily bought in those decades without stretching their budgets. Nearly the entire Sunset was built as middle class housing after WWII. Why someone would pay $500k to $1 million to live there now is beyond me. But that’s the housing bubble for you.
Besides- debating “owning” in the city of San Francisco is irrelevant. Nearly 70% of the city is renters. That’s how they all “afford” to live there.
If you go outside the “silicon valley zone” (where the tech money still influences prices)- prices have fallen quite dramatically. The $400k house in Contra Costa County is now $200k. As it should be. The incomes are no different than other major metropolitan areas.
“Regarding the sophistication of San Francisco, I will put it second only to New York for US cities.”
I disagree with this, SF (the city) attracts mostly transients, transplants, losers, hipsters with no money, lost-souls wanting to start over, gays, people who want to escape a bad life somewhere else from po-dunk places in fly-over country, NY’ers who can’t make it in NY, and lastly it attracts those who when they decide to move to CA to chase the dream, it attracts the ugly who feel they will not succeed in a place like San Diego or LA.
“There was Bank of America and Schwab and the Pacific Exchange but compared to NY or Chicago- it was puny. Same with the large law firms.”
This is exactly my impression. Didn’t BofA move to North Carolina? Most of the other big CA banks have their HQs in LA. Silicon Valley is 45 miles outside of town and only a small fraction of city dwellers work there. Look at the sizes of the office submarkets. I was searching for the sizes but couldn’t find it, but the SF office district in millions of sq. ft. must be 1/10th that of Midtown, and 1/4 of Chicago’s CBD. The BofA building on California St. Embarcadero Center, 101 California, there aren’t even that many large office towers there. I don’t see where all these jobs are, and then where these jobs that support $800 psf are.
SF is so much much smaller than even Chicago, it has far less cultural events on a weekly basis, do they have a Time Out magazinee? No chance it has more things going on, or is thicker with pages, than Chicago. Lastly, there are plenty of good places to eat in any large US metro areas these days.
miumiu: isn’t the new Lyric director literally a homosexual Jewish liberal male? This doesn’t not bode well for the beauty or relevance of an art form that was created in Europe by the antithesis of what Freud stands for. Look for Lyric to go downhill and embrace all kinds of pseudo-art and anti-art! It’s not going to be pretty, it’s going to be ugly.
“Many same sex couples are having kids now.”
That’s biologically impossible, although the media sure is working feverishly to portray something different on the TV.
Dan.. the higher I am.. the funnier you are. Honestly chuckling… it’s priceless!
btw.. just saw source code… very nice shots of the city.
Dan, I have no problem with any of those adjectives so I think I will still like lyric : )
BTW, go google some of these folks: Proust, Mendelssohn, Bernard Shaw, Alan Turing, Oscar Wilde, Tennessee Williams (my favorite playwright), Chagall (my favorite painter), Modigliani,…
You might change your mind. Though I doubt it.
Now for you to have something to bash me about Dan, my husband is making fun of me talking about Opera as he knows I mostly play 50 and Luda in my car while he is Verdi type of guy : )
“Many same sex couples are having kids now.”
That’s biologically impossible, although the media sure is working feverishly to portray something different on the TV.”
“Dan.. the higher I am.. the funnier you are. Honestly chuckling… it’s priceless!”
It’s so funny Ze because it’s true. The 1980s had their fair share of stereotypes trying to alter or embellish social norms. Recall Threes Company with the dumb blonde, clueless white guy and witty brunette.
Today’s Hollyweird tries to assert that two people incapable of reproducing are capable of raising a child in an environment approximating that natural parents. I suppose it’s Hollyweird’s response to supporting a culture so much against the nuclear family for so long.
Sorry but a non-nuclear, non-traditional family, is vastly inferior to a traditional, nuclear family. There really is no comparison. They are not the same and the equivalence in any broad number of metrics states so. It will take endless amounts of media programming to convince people otherwise, which they continuously work hard at.
Again Ze, for your lesson: a non-nuclear, non-traditional family, is vastly inferior to child rearing versus a traditional, nuclear family. I know you might not want to admit or accept this as it goes against what you people are trying to accomplish.
In light of these true facts if a woman has birth out of wedlock, she is a selfish woman raising her children as mere objects for her self worth and ego as opposed to truly caring about her offspring.
Elton John just had some kid (with his partner) and nowhere do they ever mention who the mother is, who is the person who donated the egg, was the surrogate, not one mention of the person who gave the child 1/2 of its DNA!! No, we’re to believe that two gay males living in London can procreate — when such a thing is biologically impossible. It’s beyond ridiculous, it’s done on purpose. miumiu, I think if your favorite painter is “chagall” then you’ve been brainwashed, because any observer can see that his skill is rudimentary, almost childlike in its brutality as is covers a canvass. It lacks any kind of skill or beauty. You’ve been had.
@Dan, according to the SNL Financial ranking, the four largest banks in CA are based in San Francisco: Wells (#4 in the country), Union Bank (#22), Bank of the West (#24), and First Republic Bank (#44). LA has two in the top fifty, City National (#46) and East West (#48). So no, LA is not the banking hub in CA.
Re: cultural events, I’m guessing that you have never lived in SF and are assuming from its size that there are fewer events. Having lived in both SF and Chicago for significant periods of time, I don’t think there is a qualitative difference, except for theatre and museums, as mentioned above. The fact that a city has Time Out is not dispositive of anything; LA does not have Time Out, and there are a lot of events going on there.
Re: your description of the groups of folks in SF, I’m assuming that you are trying to be provocative as opposed to earnest, so no response warranted.
In any case, looks like this thread is officially derailed, apologies for my part.
Hey Dan. As a fan of the Lyric (and a member of more than one of the labels in your rant), go fuck yourself.
my guess is that dan is a sad suburban dad who isn’t getting any action. ignore this neanderthal please.
Here I got so excited seeing 59 comments about this space that I walk by every day, and 90% of the posts are about everything but the condo.
Probably better places to debate the pros and cons of San Fran.
IrishLad? Methinks you’re more of an IrishLass.
Bob, you make no sense, as usual.
“No, San Francisco has always been expensive:”
And those are median prices for the whole metro area. EsEff, proper, was, and remains, in general more expensive than the metro median. 50% increase from 87 to 90, and no meaningful (nominal-price) correction. Look for that number to drop back to that ~$400k level.
Also, not that Chicago is *already* at the 90s-level for median price, in real $$ terms. Lotta pain left for a lotta people, but we’re near the right point on median prices, but with *way*way*way* too much distressed inventory and sales. We’ll bump along with about current median prices until we manage to get distressed sale to under 10% of the market.
You are a woman or a woman trapped in a man’s body. No straight male in their right mind refers to another male as a “neanderthal”. That’s an insult women and effeminate men use. You are one of those sub groups. Does that make enough sense for you? Could I make it any clearer?
“Hey Dan. As a fan of the Lyric (and a member of more than one of the labels in your rant), go fuck yourself.”
Hey go fuck yourself right back. If you’re a fan of the Lyric, and want to see it degraded with Anthony Freud’s anti-culture and anti-art, then you aren’t a “fan”. Where do you get off thinking you can comment on an art form that isn’t intrinsic to you or your culture anyway? You don’t hear me yapping about how gays should run their pride parade, or how Jews should celebrate Rosh Hoshanah. So, kindly leave Opera to the people who best understand it and what it is. Thanks.