Looking for a Buyer 6 Months Later: 1120 W. Armitage in Lincoln Park
This 2-bedroom unit at 1120 W. Armitage in Lincoln Park has been re-listed 3 times in the last 6 months. Each time, it has been reduced.
Here’s the listing:
Bright Southern exposure unit in Greystone building. Classic vintage details include: natural woodwork/trim, high ceilings, and hardwood floors throughout. This updated unit has an eat- in kitchen, maple cabinets, new stone/granite bath, separate dining area, gas fireplace, laundry in-unit, great closet space, storage.
Gas forced air/central air, large common area deck and garage parking included. Close to train, shops, and dining.
Mary Gott at Koenig & Strey has the listing. See more pictures here.
Unit #301: 2 bedrooms, 1 bath, 1150 square feet
- Sold in March 1992 for $162,500
- Sold in January 1997 for $179,000
- Sold in April 2004 for $321,500
- Originally listed in May 2008 for $415,000
- Canceled
- Re-listed in July 2008 for $399,000
- Canceled
- Re-listed in October 2008 for $384,800 (parking included)
- Assessments of $210 a month
- Taxes of $4,101
- Central air
225k. Having the convenience to walk to LP bars isn’t going to be a huge selling point for the 400k+ crowd.
Now that people need a downpayment this seller’s potential market has evaporated at that pricepoint. No more $0 down 20 somethings ‘livin’ the dream’.
@Bob – I agree that the DP is going to be a problem for a lot of people. However, I lived about a block away from here a few years ago and the area seemed to not have as many 20 somethings as there are a little closer to Lincoln Ave.
This would still be a hike to get to the majority of the bars in the area (ie Lincoln).
They might have been able to eke out break even over the summer. Now I’m not so sure b/c of the financial market (altho, it would be a conforming loan, which are still readily available). They’re definitely chasing the market down. First list should have been lower than their current ask.
It does have parking and CAC, which make it considerably more desireable than a lot of otherwise comparable places in similar re-hab buildings. And it’s close to the el w/o being too close. All in, it’s the kind of apartment and location I’d have liked when I was single.
anon,
You hit the nail on the head: the kind of apartment you would’ve liked when you were single. Unless mr or mrs single is earning 140k+/year or has a substantial downpayment this unit wouldn’t be affordable.
What brought on the bubble were the traditional constraints to owning expensive properties were removed. No downpayment and no income check no problem. Now you have to have a downpayment and an income to support a mortgage? Wow thats crazy! waaa
Bob:
With the current ask, and a 20% dp, you’d have it for–max–a $300k mortgage. So the challenge is the $65-70k dp, more than the $100k salary (I’m disregarding job security issues, as most 20&30-something singles making 6-figures do).
Indeed, if you were to pay $350k for this and put up 20%, the monthly mortgage+tax+assessment is right at the 28% DTI sweet spot for $100k. In my view, there are more young’ns making $100k than there are with $70k in available cash.
In my eyes, this place lost a lot of appeal when Big Johns closed. I predict this will be evident in its eventual closing price.
Bob, 225K is, in my opinion, overshooting to the downside. There is absolutely nothing special about this unit but this is worth around 300K even in this market. How much do you think this would rent for?
Seems like (glancing at CL listings) it would be an easy, easy renter at $2000, might be able to get $2400 b/c of parking, etc. My $280k mortgage example has monthly costs of just under $2400. So, at $300k, it should produce some positive cashflow as a rental, as long as it’s been well-maintained and the association isn’t short of funds. At $225k, I’d buy it today as a rental.
Bob,
Why do you hate on the 20 somethings “livin the dream” with 0% down. Have you ever thought about how anyone shy of 40 could afford their first place if those types of loans didn’t exist? Sure there are “20 somethings” that made bad decisions and bought more home than they could afford, but I think your current angst for the mkt is probably driven more by the mid lifers that bought homes in the $500K range and now have issues, not the first time home buyers.
For the record, I also hate 20 somethings “livin the dream”. The March 1992 selling price of $162,500 and the January 1997 price $179,000 made it much easier for 20 somethings ‘livin the dream’ to actually ‘live the dream’. Today, that’s its much more difficult. For example, 20% of $162k is only $32k whereas 20% of $400k is $80k. Yes there has been inflation since 1992 but factoring that in a 20% down payment then is equiv to $46,741.97 today, not the $80k+ required to puchase this unit in 2008. These 0% down ‘livin the dream’ folks bought homes basd on monthly payments, not prices, and consequently drove up the cost of housing for everyone. We as a society are all paying the collective price for their stupidity.
“20% of $400k is $80k”
Yeah, but no one’s going to bite on this one for a penny over $350k.
And, not to pick nits, but I’m going to anyway–20% of the $162,500 is $32,500. Using the BLS CPI calculator, that’s $50,680 today. The ’97 20% of $35,800 is $48,800 today.
I’ll stick with $325k being a “good” price for this over the summer(again–that might still be too high with the current economy)–$65k down, which is pretty well in line with the change in professional salaries (not median or average salaries–that’s irrelevant for this property) the past decade.
Ugh. I get really tired of hearing all the complaints about “20 somethings living the dream.” Yes, obviously, there were many of those. But plenty of us didn’t behave that way. My husband and I are 20 somethings who put 20% down on our LV condo. And, btw, our own money. No help from the parents. I have plenty of friends who also put down at least 10% on their places. Not every 20 something home owner is a deadbeat!
For one I am completely against people living beyond their means and I do not think that anybody deserves to be bailed out of a situation that they put themselves into. I find it audacious that the government is even considering trying to put a floor on these housing prices. As a person in my mid twenty’s who diligently saved and was able to put down 20% I am not necessarily happy with the fact that I will not experience any appreciation in my home over the next several years. However, the silver lining (at least so I hope) is in the fact that the type of house I want in five years will not have moved in price either, hence making it obtainable assuming I am able to maintain my job and continue to save.
Lets not forget about the flip side to the 0% down solution which was borrowing money (or just receiving it) from mommy and daddy. The thing to watch out for here is how many of the financial illiterate parents took out HELOC’s to provide their children with down payments and in addition co-signed on the loans. This could cause a fall out of massive proportions when not only junior can’t make the payments but neither can mom or dad who either just loss their job as well or just saw their retirement savings shring by 25% in the last two weeks alone.
HD basically beat me to the punch. And I will add that I too am a late-20-something. But I never got into the bubble. I make my asset purchasing decisions based on price not on payment. I’m not one of the people that spreads their car payments out over 6 or 7 years either.
Case Shiller for Chicagoland is down to around 2004 prices. This listing is not. Its just another arrogant seller who beleives they are entitled to some sort of gain on their purchase.
The mentality is so pervasive among sellers: its a complete denial of the reality of what properties are actually selling for and a whimsical hope that somehow the macroenvironment doesn’t apply to _their_ unit. They would be lucky to get their money back on this “investment” and 321k is a lot of money for a house where I come from.
The calculator I used was: http://www.westegg.com/inflation instead of a BLS CPI. That’s how I got my numbers. yes I was $500 off on the 20% of the 1992 price. but my point is still valid. 20% of the pre-boom prices was much easier to save than 20% of today’s asking prices. If prices were to return to pre-boom levels or if incomes were to rise to reflect boom prices, then saving 20% today would be on par with saving 20% then.
“Why do you hate on the 20 somethings “livin the dream” with 0% down. Have you ever thought about how anyone shy of 40 could afford their first place if those types of loans didn’t exist? ”
Easily. It is called renting.
It used to be that you rent for a few years, save enough for the down payment, and then buy. In addition to keeping prices at least somewhat in line with the income, it also taught people to manage their money more responsibly than they do today.
The fact that people are asking the questions Jason R is shows that we’re in for a huge paradigm shift here to get back to the way it was. Deflating this bubble is going to take years, maybe a decade. We didn’t get into the housing bubble crisis overnight, it will be a painful, drawn out unwind.