Market Conditions: April Sales up 41.1% in Chicago; Median Price Also Rises
The Illinois Association of Realtors announced the April home sales results this morning:
In the city of Chicago, April total home sales (single-family and condominiums) were up 41.1 percent to 1,985 sales compared to 1,407 homes sold in April 2009, the eighth consecutive month of year-over-year sales gains. The city of Chicago median price in April 2010 was $225,000, up 3.2 percent compared to $218,000 a year ago in April 2009.
“It is great to see the Chicago market’s resilience with a steady increase of volume absorption of properties, as well as traditional sales increasing at a moderate pace We are also seeing increased movement in the city’s condo market, with nearly double the number of units sold in 2010 versus the same period last year,” said REALTOR® Genie Birch, president of the Chicago Association of REALTORS® and a broker associate with Koenig & Strey Real Living, Chicago. “Low interest rates and motivated sellers make this an opportune time for homebuyers to consider their ability to purchase, today.”
In Illinois, sales were up 34.4% and median home price was up 5%.
But it appears that sales over the conforming loan limits are still slow, as evidenced by the quotes in the press release about the higher priced areas of Chicagoland.
“Home prices made sizeable gains statewide, up five percent for the month of April, with nearly half of Illinois counties reporting home price gains including Cook and Lake counties in Chicagoland,” said REALTOR® Mike Onorato, GRI, president of the Illinois Association of REALTORS® and broker-owner of Onorato Real Estate in Coal City. “As some local housing markets gain stability, REALTORS® believe it’s important to turn more attention to the higher cost areas of the Chicago region and urge increased loan limits for FHA and government-sponsored enterprise financing. Otherwise, some buyers in these markets will simply be shut out.”
April Posts 8th Straight Month of Illinois Home Sales Gains; Statewide Median Price Up 5 Percent [Illinois Association of Realtors Press Release, May 24, 2010]
I for one am shocked at that sales and price increased during April. I’m signing up for Realtor classes this evening.
The boom is back BABY!
The market is HOT HOT HOT! Buy now or be priced out forever!
This is good news–but goes against the national grain. The national news story of the morning is that inventory is up pretty big. Gary, what are you seeing WRT inventory in Chicago?
There was a Wall Street Journal article last week with a nice chart of available homes on the market nationwide by metro area. Chicago was at the top of the list at 68,984 as of 04/2010.
May need to be a subscriber for the linkage.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/retro-HOUSINGM08.html
“There was a Wall Street Journal article last week with a nice chart of available homes on the market nationwide by metro area. Chicago was at the top of the list at 68,984 as of 04/2010. ”
New York is apparently not included and Metro LA would include Orange (listed) and San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, etc (not listed). And Chicago is almost 50% larger than Dallas, over 60% larger than Houston and Philly, 75% larger than Miami and DC (and ATL, not on the list) and over 2x Boston and Phoenix and 3x Minneapolis, making the numbers look a lot less bad. Orlando is 21% the pop, with 29% the listings. Of course, there’s plenty potentially bad to pull out of the number, but to simply look at the absolute number and say Chicago has too much inventory is just wrong.
Kenworthey,
I track inventory levels in the city and in several neighborhoods. Check out the 4th graph on this page: http://chicagohousingstats.com
In addition, there are links at the bottom of the page to inventory charts for various neighborhoods. Inventory in the area is actually down quite a bit.
I should have also explained that inventory can not be looked at in terms of absolute levels but rather months of supply.
Chicago has a lot of inventory but 70% of it is overpriced. Even in my area there are 238 active listings with a median listing time of 162 days! and only 33 properties have lowered their price in the last 14 days.
Sure some properties sell and sales up are and those properties go quick! often within days.
The rest, they languish.
I’ll say we’re at or near the bottom when a majority of properties are priced appropriately today.
Some properties are in La-La land. Just listed too.
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/3909-N-Kedvale-Ave-60641/home/13458592
Is the price increasing because more of the palatial upper braket stuff is selling or are we talking appreciation here?
roscoevillager,
Ignore all talk of median prices. It’s exactly what you are saying – a mix change and not a real price change. Case Shiller comes out tomorrow and will probably show continued decline.
HD- how long do does it typically takes to sell a house? 162 days (or 5.5 months) doesn’t seem that outrageously long to me, perhaps you are missing the boat, BUY NOW OR BE PRICED OUT FOREVER!
“Even in my area there are 238 active listings with a median listing time of 162 days!”
Not sure what you used to compose “your area”, but Irving Park on redfin shows 164 SFHs with a *mean* list time of 133 days, but a *median* of something in the 70s (didn’t do an exact count). The mean is skewed by the 11 places listed for over a year (topping out at 770 days–short sale on Kimball for $275k). Median ask price–$327, mean of $369.
Of course, redfin’s “IP” area includes a bunch of less desirable stuff b/t Elston/River/Montrose/Addision–not that that’s all bad.
anon(tfo): I just did a back-of-the-envelope search. I typed in my address and zoomed out a couple of times. It included a bit of Albany park, some of portgage, but basically the eastern half of 60641 and the western half of 60618. At the every bottom of redfin is a number which said 162 days which I assumed was the median time (it could be average) but regardless, it served the purpose well for what I was trying to show. I haven’t got the time or patience to do an exacting study of the neighborhood. DOn’t forget that homes are listed, delisted and relisted often which jukes the stats.
Sonies: 162 is on the high side. IIRC it’s 90 days is typical.
“At the every bottom of redfin is a number which said 162 days which I assumed was the median time (it could be average) but regardless, it served the purpose well for what I was trying to show”
It’s average. Using median and mean interchangeably is something that has a propensity to mislead.
“DOn’t forget that homes are listed, delisted and relisted often which jukes the stats.”
This is very true, but I’m unclear if “days on redfin” are total listing days (w/o a sale. duh.) or days since most recent listing.
anon(tfo) I assumed it would be median but could you point to a link on redfin showing that those numbers are averages?
and also, i do know from experience that redfin goes by mls rules and counts only days in the current mls listing – hence the list and delist and relists which juke the stats.
This house has been listed since nov 08 and disappeared only for a couple months during nov 09-feb 10, and then was relisted even though the official listing is 84 days.
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/3853-N-Keeler-Ave-60641/home/13458700
“I assumed it would be median but could you point to a link on redfin showing that those numbers are averages?”
No, I had my list of 164 sfhs in IP and counted through 82 of them, arriving at numbers in the 70s (didn’t note exactly which were 83 and 83, so I can’t be precise). Did the same with the price–#82 was $325, #83 was $329, so median is $327, when the RF average is $369. So I know, empirically, that the numbers at the bottom are means, not medians.
price in April 2010 was $157,450, up 5.0 percent from $150,000
worth pointing out that the difference(in price) was close to the amount of the tax credit.
hd why to you always pick the property with some unique feature like a huge lot and being right next to the highway. for comparison purpose pick something close to 25 x 125 and in the middle of the neighborhood.
” I’m signing up for Realtor classes this evening.”
You mean you’re signing up for REALTOR® classes. I might just quit my job as a CONSULTANT® and join you.
That house is awesome HD, near the metra, highway, huge double lot, nice finishes frank lloyd wright style architecture… no wonder its a cool million and the taxes on that place $6500 a year LOL!
[3853 Keeler]
That’s a 3br with two so-so (12×12 and 12×11) sized BRs? And that lot with the neighbor cutting off the back of the lot sux.
listing says Dimensions: 62X124 lot though… only looks to be about 100′ on satellite view
“listing says Dimensions: 62X124 lot though… only looks to be about 100? on satellite view”
Think it’s a block that has deeper lots … [checking] … yeah, the rest of the block going south is 50×170 lots, until the church.
I should have jumped in on the market time discussion earlier. Realtors will usually talk about the market times for properties that sold. However, I find the market times for listed properties to be more enlightening. I track those market times on my site but there is some kind of data problem with the most recent 3 months so you need to ignore them. In general, across Chicago, market times are around 350 days. In some neighborhoods they are as low as 250 days but in the Near South Side they are 800 days. That’s not a typo.
So much for median prices going up. The Case Shiller Index just came out and the clock turned back to 2001.
When can we party like it’s 1999?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSqYAbBFhzc
I thought 90 days on the market seemed a bit low, it seemed every time my parents tried to sell it took from 6 months to a year or more in one instance
Wow gary I didn’t realize time was that high. The deals in my hood sell in days, literally days above ask. The rest languishes. Although the tax credit helped move a few languishing props.
I should also explain that my market time data is for 2 – 3 bedroom condos specifically.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-daley-property-tax-0526-20100525,0,5629125.story
I have my reservations about this since Daley isn’t exactly legally beholden to remarks he makes at the Chicago Club, but it’s a nice gesture at least.
I wonder how this will effect Laura’s typical doom and gloom about property taxes.
All I have to say is that Daley had better not sell our lakewater rights or I will be extremely pissed off
“I have my reservations about this since Daley isn’t exactly legally beholden to remarks he makes at the Chicago Club, but it’s a nice gesture at least.
I wonder how this will effect Laura’s typical doom and gloom about property taxes.”
No matter what, you can’t interpret that as “no tax increase” as the City’s portion is, what?, 25% of the total bill. He’s not talking about CPS, MWRD, County stuff, etc.
AND, the big problem is the re-allocation due to re-assessment among residential, commercial and industrial property. the expectation is that there will be a significant shift in the burden from C+I to residential. Daley’s only talking about no increase in the aggregate dollars requested–he can blame any tax increase to homeowners on the Assessor.
That makes sense, thanks for the explanation. Not being a homeowner, I often forget that the Chicago portion of property taxes isn’t really that much.