Market Conditions: September Sales Dive 16.6% in Chicago; What Gives?
The Illinois Association of Realtors is out with the September sales which we already knew weren’t that great.
The IAR blamed it on tight inventory and rising mortgage rates.
The city of Chicago saw year-over-year home sales decrease 16.6 percent with 1,963 sales in September, compared to 2,355 a year ago. The median price of a home in the city of Chicago in September was $287,400 up 4.5 percent compared to September 2017 when it was $275,000.
September sales for the last 11 years:
- 2007: 2172 sales
- 2008: 1816 sales
- 2009: 1918 sales
- 2010: 1403 sales
- 2011: 1498 sales
- 2012: 1845 sales
- 2013: 2395 sales
- 2014: 2242 sales
- 2015: 2414 sales
- 2016: 2398 sales
- 2017: 2355 sales
- 2018: 1963 sales
Median prices for the last 11 years:
- 2007: $267,750
- 2008: $268,600
- 2009: $225,000
- 2010: $180,000
- 2011: $190,000
- 2012: $188,900
- 2013: $230,000
- 2014: $249,000
- 2015: $250,000
- 2016: $260,000
- 2017: $275,000
- 2018: $287,400
“The data shows a slowdown in closed sales in Chicago because inventory continues to fall, and people may be priced out of the few price bands where there is inventory,” said Tommy Choi, president of the Chicago Association of REALTORS® and broker at Keller Williams Chicago – Lincoln Park. “Price continues to be key in current market conditions, particularly as interest rates continue to rise.”
“While price growth continues with modest gains, sales in both the Chicago Metro Area and Illinois have decreased on both a year-over-year and on a monthly basis” said Geoffrey J.D. Hewings, director of the Regional Economics Applications Laboratory at the University of Illinois. “September’s sales were lower, but it is difficult to extract any trend from one month’s data and it will require more monitoring in the months ahead to determine longer-term market impacts.”
Market time statewide dropped to 48 days from 51 days last year.
The decline in sales wasn’t just in Chicago, the 9 county Chicagoland area saw sales decline 12.1%.
“Consumers this fall are confronted with fewer options when they are looking for a new home,” said Ed Neaves, Illinois REALTORS® president-elect and managing broker of Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Snyder Real Estate in Bloomington. “Low inventories, coupled with increases in interest rates, are making it much tougher for some buyers to make a move, even though the data suggests many very much do want to make a purchase.”
And for all the talk about higher rates, the average 30-year rose to just 4.63% from 4.55% in August but was up from 3.8% a year ago.
The rates didn’t spike to 5% until October.
Wouldn’t those who closed in September have been locked into their rates several months before?
And tight inventory is certainly nothing new. That’s been the story for over a year.
What caused the sudden slowdown in sales in September?
Was it a one-off?
Or are we entering into a new phase of the post-bust housing market?
Illinois home sales down in September; median prices show moderate gains [Illinois Association of Realtors, Press Release, October 19, 2018]
One thing I have mentioned in my blog but not here before is that for several months we’ve been drawing down pending home sales. However, in September we actually rebuilt that. So that previously boosted sales and then in September it depressed them. Another way of saying this is that if you look at YOY contracts it has been more consistently negative with less swinging from month to month.
why do they never mention real estate taxes as a potential roadblock? It boggles my fucking mind how an increase of 50-100 a month in mortgage interest is all of a sudden going to freeze the real estate market but hundreds of dollars a month in property taxes (that you probably can’t even deduct anymore) is a non factor… what the fuck realtors?
sonies totally agree
“why do they never mention real estate taxes as a potential roadblock? It boggles my fucking mind how an increase of 50-100 a month in mortgage interest is all of a sudden going to freeze the real estate market but hundreds of dollars a month in property taxes (that you probably can’t even deduct anymore) is a non factor… what the fuck realtors?”
—————————–
Real estate taxes get folded into rent prices, so if you want to live here, you pay the taxes either way; you can’t avoid them. Interest rates, however, allow a before/after comparison: Had you bought 6 months/a year ago, you would have avoided that interest rate increase, so psychologically, it’s a bigger hit.
So yes, taxes ARE a damper on home sales, particularly now that one cannot write off SALT like before. Interest rate increases make headlines, though, property tax increases not so much.
I posted 3 posts that never made it on here in the past few weeks. They were relevant comments to the topic too… censoring posts from those who are interested in the site content = such garbage.
” Interest rate increases make headlines, though, property tax increases not so much.”
bollocks, I would think that people might start to get mad with the tax and spend machine if it was pointed out why their house wasn’t REALLY appreciating eh?
“bollocks, I would think that people might start to get mad with the tax and spend machine if it was pointed out why their house wasn’t REALLY appreciating eh?”
———————
I agree, but that has nothing to do with the fact that interest rate increases make headlines, tax rate increases not so much.
no wonder journalism is dying!
“the tax and spend machine”
The real problem in Illinois and Chicago is “tax and spent”, past tense, as almost all of the additional $$ go to paying for past borrowing (and “borrowing”).
One of the candidates for alderman in my ward has been claiming she’d lower property taxes. I’m just not sure how she’d do it, especially given the rest of her platform (which was all about increased spending) and that it’s a county thing.
Another assertion by a candidate in my ward: the government should pay for it (referring to lead in water from plumbing), not the taxpayers. Hmm. How does that work, exactly?
“One of the candidates for alderman in my ward has been claiming she’d lower property taxes. I’m just not sure how she’d do it, especially given the rest of her platform (which was all about increased spending) and that it’s a county thing.”
I don’t know who comes off worse in this comment, your candidate, for their ridiculous claims, or you, for your understanding of how taxes are set.
“Another assertion by a candidate in my ward: the government should pay for it (referring to lead in water from plumbing), not the taxpayers. Hmm. How does that work, exactly?”
————————–
Probably referring to paying for the cost of replacing the water service lines from the water mains into the houses. The City REQUIRED the use of lead service lines until 1986, when the federal government banned lead service lines. The City, in thrall to the plumbers union, mandated lead lines because the union wanted it (lead is difficult to work with and only union-trained plumbers have the skills to do it). So the City now has a condition that will cost an estimated $1.4 billion (yes, a b) to fix.
A few years ago I had the lead service line replaced from the b-box into my house, leaving the main-to-b-box lead line in place. The cost was just under $9,000. The estimate to replace the line from the main to the b-box was about $13,500 back then.
All because the aldermen wanted to placate the unions.
New York City banned using lead pipe in 1946. The toxic qualities of lead have been known since the Roman empire.
“The estimate to replace the line from the main to the b-box was about $13,500 back then.”
A significant portion of that being the permit to open up the street.
And I think that $1.5B estimate has the city doing all the work, rather than contracting individually.
“Probably referring to paying for the cost of replacing the water service lines from the water mains into the houses.”
Yes, this.
What I found annoying was the assertion that the gov’t should pay for it, but not the taxpayers, as if there were some other likely source of gov’t money that we could use.
“Real estate taxes get folded into rent prices, so if you want to live here, you pay the taxes either way; you can’t avoid them…
So yes, taxes ARE a damper on home sales, particularly now that one cannot write off SALT like before.”
Rents more or less track with home prices in the long run so you can’t have rents going up and home prices going down at the same time as a result of a tax increase. If you believe home prices are going down then you should believe that rents do not go up (maybe even go down). In that case landlords get totally screwed and the value of their investment properties go down as the returns go down otherwise.
“I posted 3 posts that never made it on here in the past few weeks. They were relevant comments to the topic too… censoring posts from those who are interested in the site content = such garbage.”
No comments are pending duffer so I don’t know what you’re talking about. I only remove comments if they attack another poster, reveal private information about the home seller or try and promote a business or listing.
I haven’t removed any comments for months.
“why do they never mention real estate taxes as a potential roadblock?”
Yes! I agree Sonies. It’s a huge increase. A big deterrent. Hundreds more a month, in some cases.
““The estimate to replace the line from the main to the b-box was about $13,500 back then.”
A significant portion of that being the permit to open up the street.
And I think that $1.5B estimate has the city doing all the work, rather than contracting individually.”
———————
If I remember correctly, the main to bbox replacement permit was $3,000. The bbox to house permit was $600.
As for the $1.4 billion estimate has the City doing all the work, the cost won’t be any lower with private contractors. The City requires private companies working on the City’s infrastructure to pay union scale and use union staffing levels. There won’t be any cost savings using private entities.
Remember, the politicians are in thrall to the unions, and by forcing contractors to use union plumber labor (or at least not benefiting from using non-union labor), the union preserves jobs. To Hell with the taxpayers.
“As for the $1.4 billion estimate has the City doing all the work, the cost won’t be any lower with private contractors”
I meant that having a single contractor (or several, each working in a separate, contiguous part of the city) would reduce total costs–replacing every supply on the block at once is definitely cheaper than doing it piecemeal with a given block being dug up 40 times over 3 years.
And yes, clearly, having a team of proverbial Policy plumbers, late of the UK, come over and do the work w/o union rates would reduce the total cost even more.
“And yes, clearly, having a team of proverbial Policy plumbers, late of the UK, come over and do the work w/o union rates would reduce the total cost even more.”
———————
I think you mean Polish plumbers.
While Rahm has done enormous amounts of work in getting the fiscal health of our city back on track, the next mayor and city council are going to have to make some very tough decisions for the next budget. Hundreds of millions of additional dollars must be raised somehow to pay off ballooning pension debts. The city is one recession away from bankruptcy.
‘Polish plumbers.’
indeed. weird typo.
‘The city is one recession away from bankruptcy.’
if you mean chapter 9, it’s a recession plus a change in state law away. if you mean ‘just’ being unable to pay its bills, one could say the city has been that sort of bankrupt for going on 50 years–which is why the hole is so deep now.
” if you mean ‘just’ being unable to pay its bills, one could say the city has been that sort of bankrupt for going on 50 years–which is why the hole is so deep now.”
——————-
Actually, King Richard I always submitted balanced budgets, and there was no pension shortfall when he died (mid-1970s). In contrast, King Richard II never submitted a balanced budget.
So it’s only been 40-plus years.
But see In re Pension Reform Litigation, 2015 IL 118585:
“For as long as there have been public pension systems in Illinois, there has been tension between the government’s responsibility for funding those systems, on the one hand, and the costs of supporting governmental programs and providing governmental services, on the other.
In the resulting political give and take, public pensions have chronically suffered.
[b]As long ago as 1917[/b], a report commissioned by the General Assembly characterized the condition of State and municipal pension systems as “one of insolvency” and “moving toward a crisis” because
of financial provisions which were “entirely inadequate for paying the stipulated pensions when due.” Report of the Illinois Pension Laws Commission 272 (1917). [b]Similar warnings were issued by the Illinois Public Employees Pension Laws Commission in biennial reports it
published between 1947 and 1969.[/b] See, e.g., Report of the Illinois Public Employees Pension Laws Commission of 1949, 10 (1949) (revenues allocated to pension funds have not kept pace with obligations and, with few exceptions, “every fund in Illinois suffers at this time an
actuarial insolvency”).
¶ 12 As the deficient contributions continued even during the post-WWII boom, the Commission wondered: “[i]f the State of Illinois and local governments are today resisting the full or substantial funding of pension obligations under present conditions of economic prosperity, how much more unfavorable will be the financial status of the funds when the obligations mature in greater proportions and economic conditions may not be as promising?” Report of the Illinois Public Employees Pension Laws Commission of 1957, 10 (1957). Still, nothing changed….”
“But see In re Pension Reform Litigation, 2015 IL 118585:”
———————
Good discussion of state pension conditions, but the original comment was directed at Chicago’s pension conditions. Those didn’t go pear shaped until Boss Daley died.
“Chicago’s pension conditions. Those didn’t go pear shaped until Boss Daley died.”
wrong-o:
“[in 1969], The City of Chicago’s five pension funds were funded at the following percentages: Police (34.6%); Firemen (50.6%); Laborers (81.9%); Municipal Employees (56.9%); and Teachers (32.7%).”
Page 9 of this: https://www.nasra.org/Files/State-Specific/Illinois/IL%20pension%20history.pdf
“While Rahm has done enormous amounts of work in getting the fiscal health of our city back on track, the next mayor and city council are going to have to make some very tough decisions for the next budget.”
I voted for Rahm twice because I thought he was the only candidate who had a clue about the fiscal problems the city faced.
Unfortunately, going into the next election, the pickings of candidates with a similar understanding, who will also try and tackle some of the enormous social problems the city faces with crime and the growing wealth inequality (my gosh- six people were just shot in broad daylight coming out of a church after a funeral!) are slim.
The next mayor is going to face similar challenges that Rahm did when he first took office, only with a better economy to deal with it (thankfully.) But the choices will not be good. There is no putting off the day of reckoning anymore. There is only going to be pain. Taxes are going to go up- on something- to pay for our obligations.
This was just interesting.
What student housing looks like around the world –
https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/13/what-student-housing-looks-like-around-the-world-8035147/
“wrong-o:
“[in 1969], The City of Chicago’s five pension funds were funded at the following percentages: Police (34.6%); Firemen (50.6%); Laborers (81.9%); Municipal Employees (56.9%); and Teachers (32.7%).””
——————-
Hmmpf. I will have to reconsider. Thanks for the info.
The pensions were funded at those levels based on healthy investment returns. At that time a good AAA investment paid a nice return. Aside from the massive fraud of 2000-2008, where the rating agencies labeled pieces of crap as “AAA”, investment returns have not been high for many of the years from 1969 to 2018.
I know this may sound stupid to some of you pros, but I have always been puzzled by why the volume of sales during a particular period has always been the headliner when giving news of the real estate market. Yes, I can see this is the most important data for agents. The only time they make a commission is when a sale occurs, so lower volume of sales spells bad news. But the way I see it, for buyers and sellers, this is fairly useless information. Lower number of sales could be caused by lower number of units on the market, or it could be caused by fewer buyers out there. The former is good news for sellers, as there is less competition for them. The latter is good news for buyers because they can negotiate better prices.
The only really important data for both sellers and buyers is whether sale prices are higher or lower than the previous year. This is the only information they need to make informed decisions on how to correctly price a property in order to succeed in selling it, or what to offer on a property in order to succeed buying it, but not to overpay.
What am I missing?
“The only really important data for both sellers and buyers is whether sale prices are higher or lower than the previous year. This is the only information they need to make informed decisions on how to correctly price a property in order to succeed in selling it, or what to offer on a property in order to succeed buying it, but not to overpay.
What am I missing?”
—————————–
Liquidity is one factor, which is why Gary’s comments that listing time to sale is telling. Sale volumes are low, but listing times for properties that do sell are not lengthening (per his analysis), so the market seems liquid enough. Gary promised he’d look into expired/withdrawn listings and see how that affects the outlook.
The curious point was why is it that some houses sell, and sell rapidly, whilst comparable properties get mossy on the shelf. Price, per those in the trenches, doesn’t seem to account for the all of the difference.
“The pensions were funded at those levels based on healthy investment returns.”
I’ve always assumed that when they say that the pensions are funded at 35% that meant that they had 35% of the funds required, given the returns required over time, to meet the obligations. So you have to pay out $150MM over time and need $100MM to do that but you only have $35 MM in the fund.
“Price, per those in the trenches, doesn’t seem to account for the all of the difference.”
Well, I think ultimately it does. Anything can be sold in a reasonable time period at the right price. I think there are certain segments of the market that are really dead but I can’t say it’s any worse than it was in the past. However, if there were downward price pressure we’d also be seeing a decline in the sales/ list ratio as realtors and sellers chase the market down.
“The curious point was why is it that some houses sell, and sell rapidly, whilst comparable properties get mossy on the shelf. Price, per those in the trenches, doesn’t seem to account for the all of the difference.”
Why are you sure it is not pricing that is the factor for listing time? Isn’t it possible there is a lag time from when the market changes, but sellers get realistic about pricing their properties? Perhaps for a period – even a year or two – sellers will not accept that prices have fallen. They will not lower their asking price, and the only places that sell are the few that have lowered the prices, or a few lucky sellers who have idiot buyers who overpay. This would account for lower volume in sales. So if I’m a potential seller, it would not matter if the volume is high or low. As long I price realistically given the market, the property will sell. And if I’m a potential buyer, there is no value in my knowing what sales volume is. If I find a property I like, I check what the prices have been doing and make sure not to bid too high on a place despite the seller being one of the delusional ones who will not budge. This has happened to me a couple of times. I found places I really loved, but the sellers refused to budge, and I walked away. A year later, I noted that both places eventually ended up selling for LESS than what I had offered. That’s how long it took the sellers to get real. If I had caved in at the time and increased my offer, I would have been left holding the bag on a place I overpaid for.
Again, strictly from the viewpoint of a private seller or a buyer, I just don’t see what use “sales volume” information has, to the point of making it the headliner in Market Conditions.
Gary – You just wrote the same thing I did using a quarter of the number of words! I guess that’s why you’re the pro!
“I’ve always assumed that when they say that the pensions are funded at 35% that meant that they had 35% of the funds required, given the returns required over time, to meet the obligations.”
If by “given the returns required over time” you mean the assumed average annual return for the fund, then that is basically right.
This isn’t really on that topic, but is a quick read that explains why, from an actuary’s perspective, 100% funding is the proper standard, rather than 80% as is often discussed in the media https://www.actuary.org/files/80_Percent_Funding_IB_071912.pdf
“The curious point was why is it that some houses sell, and sell rapidly, whilst comparable properties get mossy on the shelf. Price, per those in the trenches, doesn’t seem to account for the all of the difference.”
I’m not in the trenches, but I’ve been following some areas closely because of looking myself and trying to figure out how to price my former place (which sold quickly), and then just because of interest.
Unless you go look at everything that seems comparable, it’s hard to say for sure, but for the most part the places that I saw not selling either needed updates beyond what people currently seem to prefer (not being sold as fixer-uppers) or were overpriced compared to the market. Or had other drawbacks vs. what they were being compared with.
“when they say that the pensions are funded at 35% that meant that they had 35% of the funds required”
I believe this is true. The city contributed 35% of the required amount needed for the pension to be fully funded. The remaining amount was supposed to be gotten from investment returns. Some pension planning was based on 10 percent investment returns, which would double the invested money every 7.2 years. When “passbook” interest rates were 5% in 1969, getting 10% for an institutional investment was not unreasonable. The problem was that the pension contributions didn’t keep up as the investment landscape changed.
“the places that I saw not selling either needed updates beyond what people currently seem to prefer (not being sold as fixer-uppers) or were overpriced compared to the market.”
Not selling because it needed updates also means it was overpriced. I had a vintage condo in Lincoln Park once that got 4 offers in 1 week. I tried to steer the disappointed 3 people whose offers I did not accept to the identical mirror-image unit on the same floor that was in a wreck. I pointed out to them they could buy the place for much lower price than mine, put in exactly what they liked, and end up paying same as my place. No one went for it. One of their realtors told me that if it would take $50,000 to renovate that unit to the level of mine, the owner would have to sell it at $100,000 lower price in order to tempt buyers. Sellers obviously do not get this. They don’t update their place, and think they can just charge a price just low enough to compensate for dollar amount it would take to update. Apparently, it doesn’t work that way!
” The city contributed 35% of the required amount needed for the pension to be fully funded. The remaining amount was supposed to be gotten from investment returns.”
No, I’m saying something different. They needed 100 MM to provide 150 MM in benefits. 100 MM would be fully funded. If they have 35 MM then they are 35% funded.
“Why are you sure it is not pricing that is the factor for listing time?”
————————–
Everything comes down to price, but from commentary here I got the impression that people were thinking the market was behaving somewhat arbitrarily: Some houses were moving quickly and others weren’t budging, and price didn’t seem to be the be-all and end-all reason for it.
” If they have 35 MM then they are 35% funded.”
The pension contribution rate is not a measure of how much is in the fund. It’s a measure of the recurring payment made into the fund.
Imagine that you had a saving account where you would gather your monthly mortgage payment. You could divide your mortgage payment by 30 and contribute 1/30th to your savings every day. But because you’re a great investor, you contribute a much smaller amount, maybe only 35% of the full 1/30th amount. At the end of the month, you’re hoping to have 100% of the required mortgage payment in your savings account because of your investment returns.
“Not selling because it needed updates also means it was overpriced.”
Yes, of course. I wasn’t disagreeing.
But the extent to which “needing updates” affects price varies, and it seems to me it’s quite significant for many in the current market vs. some others (or other places). People (either a seller or someone trying to figure out pricing or why a place is not selling) might not adequately factor that in so might not realize it was overpriced.
“I got the impression that people were thinking the market was behaving somewhat arbitrarily”
All the places I actually saw that were not moving seemed to me to be overpriced. A number of these sold quickly once the price was reduced.
It’s sometimes hard to tell from an online listing why a place is not selling, and that might account for the “I don’t get it” factor.
“The pension contribution rate is not a measure of how much is in the fund. It’s a measure of the recurring payment made into the fund.”
I don’t think so. That would not be a useful definition. What would be useful is the ratio of the current assets divided by the discounted future obligations (based on earned benefits to date), where the discount rate would be your expected return on the investments. That seems to be consistent with the discussion in this article that basically says the plans should be funded at 100%. https://www.actuary.org/files/80_Percent_Funding_IB_071912.pdf
Actually, I just found this. It seems to confirm what I just said. http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/HouseFinance/Key%20Pension%20Terms.pdf
From your link, this is what I’m talking about: “contribution patterns are structured with the objective of attaining a funded ratio of 100% over a reasonable period of time.”
When the city talks about how it’s funding the city’s pensions, it’s talking from the perspective of contributions.
If you’re looking at current assets verses future obligations, then 50% funded is on target if the obligations are 10 years away and the discount rate is 7.2%. The fund will double in 10 years.
“If you’re looking at current assets verses future obligations, then 50% funded is on target if the obligations are 10 years away and the discount rate is 7.2%. The fund will double in 10 years.”
No, that’s not what the funding ratios mean, at all.
An actuary might say Gary isn’t really right, but Gary’s explanation is right enough for an “informed voter standard.
Indeed, in most cases, the funding ratios also *assume* that the required annual minimum contributions are made, too. Which only recently started being made consistently, in some cases for the first time ever.
“contribution patterns are structured with the objective of attaining a funded ratio of 100% over a reasonable period of time.”
What anon said. However, to address your comment…the full quote is “If the funded ratio is less than 100%, contribution patterns are structured with the objective of attaining a funded ratio of 100% over a reasonable period of time.”
So they are saying that the ratio should be 100% and if it’s not 100% you need a plan to get to 100%. And you have to look at the definition of funded ratio, which is covered in the second link I provided and it supports what anon said. A 100% target only makes sense with the definition of the ratio that anon and I (I was basically assuming that you would have to factor in future contributions but didn’t see an easy way to explain that) are using.
I call bullshit on taxes being the problem. If taxes truly were a problem this would be a phenomenon hitting every big city in our nation. San Francisco, NYC, LA, San Diego, Seattle, all of them would have the same issue.
New York City is colder, dirtier, and far more expensive tax wise than here.
The problem we have when looking for a SFH here is inventory. And even if we find a home in a neighborhood we want to live in. Every single one has been gutted and turned into a pure white modern monstrosity.
Blame the people gutting all the homes and making them look the same. Rehabbers are ruining what little inventory is left in the SFH market.
UGLY UGLY UGLY AS SHIT.
All the other cities have far, far more inventory on the market that doesn’t all look like they copied the same listing in Houzz.
a, I love your fiery expression and PASSION! Finally someone who is not PC and afraid to offend. I agree on the rehabbers. But the rehabbers make their choices because of the buyers from the dum dum spoon-fed generation. Their style is based on the commercially desirable and what will sell.
My heart skips a beat for anything original especially if it is stamped “Made in Chicago”. I keep the 1950s solid wood cabinets and just paint them instead of ripping them out. I reglaze the original cast iron tubs. I don’t paint wood trim or moldings. I spent quite a bit of time trying to re-wire an original doorbell once but that failed. I don’t rip anything out unless it is past its useful life.
Not everyone has the same appreciation though.
“If taxes truly were a problem this would be a phenomenon hitting every big city in our nation. San Francisco, NYC, LA, San Diego, Seattle, all of them would have the same issue”
None of those cities have property tax (effective) rates increasing the way that Chicago does, and all have lower effective rates. CA cities are all ~1.25%; Seattle is under 1%; NYC is even lower.
Income tax, sure, but Washington has no income tax, so Seattle is inapposite.
“Blame the people gutting all the homes and making them look the same. Rehabbers are ruining what little inventory is left in the SFH market.
UGLY UGLY UGLY AS SHIT.
All the other cities have far, far more inventory on the market that doesn’t all look like they copied the same listing in Houzz.”
a: too true. I just saw a house that was completely rehabbed on the south side. Cute little brick bungalow.
Inside was, you guessed it, light gray walls, white cabinets in the kitchen, gray and white tile backsplash, white counter tops, stainless steel appliances, wainscoting on the walls (white, of course.)
Completely indistinguishable from a new build even though the house itself was circa 1927. What a shame.
But I do agree with Milkster, that they have to put in finishes that appeal to the widest audience and that means those who watch Chip and Joanna Gaines on HGTV.
” I just saw a house that was completely rehabbed on the south side. Cute little brick bungalow.
Inside was, you guessed it, light gray walls, white cabinets in the kitchen, gray and white tile backsplash, white counter tops, stainless steel appliances, wainscoting on the walls (white, of course.)”
——————
All too true. My question is: On the South Side bungalow belt, would that have counted as avant garde, and therefore the thing to do? I do seem to remember r.e. agents whining about “location, location, location,” — and then whining about being called out for stretching Bucktown’s borders South of Armitage.
Got a problem with that?
I agree about the HGTV-inspired boringness of much of the new construction and rehabs, but I’m skeptical about the suggestion that that’s why sales are low or prices are flat. Buying a property that has not been redone in such a way usually is cheaper, after all, especially if you are willing to do the updates yourself.
In some neighborhoods it’s hard to find anything older/reasonably priced, because lot prices alone are so high and developers have to build some fancy new place that goes for $2m+ to make a profit. Other places it’s harder than it used to be to find a place that needs work, because they get purchased by flippers before they go on the market, but it depends on the area. There are areas of the city where older places are more available.
My own pet peeve are the traditional brick bungalows that get ridiculous-looking wood additions on the top.
“But I do agree with Milkster, that they have to put in finishes that appeal to the widest audience and that means those who watch Chip and Joanna Gaines on HGTV.”
this developer, along with it’s celebrity HGTV designer Alison Victoria, have been rehabbing homes throughout Bucktown, Wicker Park, West town, etc for their show Windy City Flip. Here’s one of their latest. How can they think this fits in with it’s Bucktown (or WP) surroundings. They cut the price 25k already. They have a few others in the works in Bucktown where filming is ongoing.
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1700-W-Wabansia-Ave-60622/home/13355234
Interesting, marco! That place was built in 1991, and price history as follows:
1997: $450K
2002: $650K (change in neighborhood plus during the boom period)
2013: $460 (bust plus perhaps needed updating — comments prior to sale support needed updating and subsequently added a bedroom)
2017: $790K (presumably did some updating)
2018: listed for $1.4 m — so they are trying to flip a place that was likely already updated by giving it the HGTV flip show treatment? Ugh.
Curious what it looked like in 2013 and 2017. As for the outside changes, you can see that with street view, and agree that’s a weird-looking change for the location.
“Curious what it looked like in 2013 and 2017.”
it was pretty ugly then too. you can see the previous listing here…they put a decent amount of work into it.
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1700-W-Wabansia-Ave-60622/home/13355234/mred-09646498
most of their projects are more extensive than this. virtually tearing down most of the house with the exception of the side walls.
They really needed to use fake grass in that backyard well.
too lazy to look but I wonder if Alison Victoria worked for Toll brothers because those look nearly identical to some new construction homes I saw out west a year or two ago… not a huge fan of the style myself but that bucktown house looks nearly identical to one that I looked at
“I do seem to remember r.e. agents whining about “location, location, location,” — and then whining about being called out for stretching Bucktown’s borders South of Armitage.”
90% of us on this site aren’t real estate agents, johnc, and we all pretty much agree that Bucktown extends to North Avenue. Just get over it already.
“90% of us on this site aren’t real estate agents, johnc, and we all pretty much agree that Bucktown extends to North Avenue.”
———————-
Define “us.”
I’m sure your 8th grade English teacher told you to never use a pronoun before you used a noun.
And to avoid playing Twenty Questions: The qualifications of “us” are? — I just want to make sure that those who want to create a “buzz” whilst concealing their own interests and identities don’t get a pass.
“I just want to make sure that those who want to create a “buzz” whilst concealing their own interests and identities don’t get a pass.”
You’re new here.
Someone is creating a “buzz”? On CribChatter?
Ba ha ha ha!
The real estate agents have been open that they are agents on this site. They don’t hide it. The rest of us aren’t. Or if they are- it’s not their properties on the site so it doesn’t matter.
We’re not here to bash real estate agents. They provide their services. You can hire them, or not. Free choice.
And Bucktown, to anyone who isn’t acting like an old “get off my lawn crank, goes *at least* as far south as Bloomingdale, and extends east of Damen, too.
If you want to choose up sides on whether the southern border is North or Bloomingdale, that’s a real discussion.
But Armitage as a dividing line has as much relevance and currency as 54-40, or talking about the cities Koenigsberg and Danzig–it’s a nice historical note.
“But Armitage as a dividing line has as much relevance and currency as 54-40, ”
——————-
“Fifty-four forty or fight!” kinda goes in parallel with “Bucktown only to Armitage!”
Thanks.
And Bucktown/WP south of Bloomingdale and even south of Armitage is home to richer people than north of Armitage. I posted links and stats elsewhere.
If I were to move to that area (which I have no desire to do, I’m happy in Lincoln Square), I’d want to be near the fun Milwaukee//Damen/North intersection.
I meant S of Armitage and even S of Bloomingdale.
“And Bucktown/WP [S of Armitage and even S of Bloomingdale] is home to richer people than north of Armitage. I posted links and stats elsewhere.”
Well, vast majority of the lots n of armitage are those crappy short ones.
“‘And Bucktown/WP [S of Armitage and even S of Bloomingdale] is home to richer people than north of Armitage. I posted links and stats elsewhere.’
Well, vast majority of the lots n of armitage are those crappy short ones.”
————————
Questions of income and crappy lots are irrelevant to boundaries.
In the famous words of the political Right: “Bucktown, love it or leave it.” 🙂
“Perhaps the typical Polish neighborhood here is Bucktown, bounded by Armitage, Fullerton, Western, and Damen. It is a cozy neighborhood of small, neat homes, corner drugstores, taverns and churches. Poles coexist with yuppies who have moved westward to escape the higher rents of Lincoln Park.”
Source: Chicago Politics Ward By Ward, David K. Fremon. Indiana University Press. Bloomington. 1988, page 212.
Seems the Encyclopedia of Chicago, referred to in another thread, made a mistake.
Note the date.
Hmm in 1988 the Bucktown SE border was Damen and Armitage?
Yet, only a few of years later, maybe 1992, a friend bought a home in Bucktown near Wabansia and Wood (what is now near the “Bucktown Market”).
He wanted to be near enough to the Flat Iron Building to participate in the Around-the-Coyote arts festival but there was too much crime and gangs for him to buy in Wicker Park.
“Source: Chicago Politics Ward By Ward, David K. Fremon. Indiana University Press. Bloomington. 1988, page 212.”
Quoting obsolete sources is not helping your cause.
“Quoting obsolete sources is not helping your cause.”
———————–
Gee, Gary, when the Encyclopedia of Chicago was quoted as a source of Bucktown to North Avenue — which in turn bottomed on Chicago Politics By Ward, with specific mention of the year of the source (1988) — you were strangely silent as to the “obsolete” source back then.
We will pass over without mention your lack of any defense to the transparent attempt of the real estate shills (“78” developers included) to DOUBLE the size of Bucktown. Back in the day (I was there), Wicker Park was hot and Bucktown was hotter. Just as — as noted in another thread — Lake View was hot, and Lincoln Park was hotter. Guess what? The r. e. shill tried to push Lincoln Park up to Wellington. Fail.
And r. e. shills trying to push a self-interested bootstrap of Bucktown South of Armitage (think self-interested bootstrapping of Lincoln Park to Wellington)? That’s a fail, too.
Bucktown stops at Armitage. And the endorsement of the misquote (generously) of the Encyclopedia of Chicago by all and sundry some time ago as “evidence” against my position works against you.
Borders ain’t fluid, no matter how much inventory you have between North and Armitage.
Try telling Germany, Poland and Yugoslavia that borders aren’t fluid. From what year do you define Germany’s borders?
“Yet, only a few of years later, maybe 1992, a friend bought a home in Bucktown near Wabansia and Wood (what is now near the “Bucktown Market”).”
—————————-
And whom, prithy, told him that he was buying in Bucktown? Or that he was “near” (define please) the “Bucktown Market.”
A real estate agent? A business trying to market itself as cool? Please, tell us.
I have dollars to doughnuts it wasn’t someone who lived in Bucktown as honestly defined.
“Try telling Germany, Poland and Yugoslavia that borders aren’t fluid. From what year do you define Germany’s borders?”
———————————-
Really, Gary? You want to take Germany’s invasions as legit?
The one where the Germans weren’t marching and invading.
I seem to remember that I stated in a prior post that I never heard anyone singing “Bucktown uber allies.”
As for Germany’s borders, rather than me, maybe you want to ask the Poles and Yugoslaves — and all of the other eastern europeans — tha?
“Just as — as noted in another thread — Lake View was hot, and Lincoln Park was hotter. Guess what? The r. e. shill tried to push Lincoln Park up to Wellington. Fail.”
Stop lying.
“the misquote (generously) of the Encyclopedia of Chicago”
STOP LYING.
The full entry:
“Bucktown.
Part of the West Town and Logan Square Community Areas. Roughly bounded by North, Ashland, Western, and Fullerton Avenues, Bucktown supposedly takes its name from the goats that roamed its streets at the turn of the twentieth century. Originally a primarily Polish working-class area of small homes, saloons, and churches, it has experienced significant gentrification in recent years.”
“The one where the Germans weren’t marching and invading.”
So, only the post-WW2 borders are valid? For there was never before that a time where there was both a true German state, and they weren’t “marching and invading”. Unless, I guess, you credit Weimar as no “marching and invading”, but then there would have to be fluid borders.
And, anyway, the UMC denizens of Bucktown “invaded” Wicker Park, and took it over. Yuppies marching and invading.
“Back in the day”
This is the problem with this discussion, right? Johnc hasn’t lived in Bucktown in like 30 years!
Ba ha ha ha!
The whole entire neighborhood (as well as those around it) are completely different. He may as well have lived in Brooklyn.
So the argument is really dumb, when you think about it. The rest of us who HAVE lived there, in, say, the last 20 years are arguing with someone with no clue. Kind of like arguing with Dan about Chicago issues when he hasn’t ever and doesn’t live in Chicago and has no real clue.
“STOP LYING.
The full entry:
“Bucktown.
Part of the West Town and Logan Square Community Areas. Roughly bounded by North, Ashland, Western, and Fullerton Avenues, Bucktown supposedly takes its name from the goats that roamed its streets at the turn of the twentieth century. Originally a primarily Polish working-class area of small homes, saloons, and churches, it has experienced significant gentrification in recent years.””
—————————
You conveniently omit the fact that the Encyclopedia of Chicago entry cited only one source for its entry on Bucktown, and that was Chicago Politics Ward By Ward, by David K. Fremon, from 1988.
I went to the Fremon book and found that he didn’t mention North Avenue. He mentioned Armitage.
So, anon, please tell us; just how did I lie?
As for Sabrina taking issue with the fact that I haven’t lived in Bucktown in “like 30 years” — how does one’s presence or absence from an area change borders?
One cannot bootstrap a change in facts. Full stop. The fact that someone was lied to about what they were getting when they moved in South of Armitage a mere 20 years ago doesn’t change anything.
I haven’t looked at this post in a while, but I kept seeing it pop up in the “recent comments”, so I thought I’d take a look.
I am flabbergasted that people are still arguing over the borders of Bucktown.
I mean, we all have our pet peeves (don’t get me started on “have another think coming” vs. “have another thing coming”, or “chaise lounge”), but c’mon people, we are beating a dead hobbyhorse, here. (don’t get me started on mixed metaphors).
“You conveniently omit the fact that the Encyclopedia of Chicago entry cited only one source for its entry on Bucktown, and that was Chicago Politics Ward By Ward, by David K. Fremon, from 1988.”
So, a citation means that ALL the facts came from that source? Hmmm…
perhaps, in an (at least) equally likely case, the citation is for this tidbit:
“Originally a primarily Polish working-class area of small homes, saloons, and churches”
“we are beating a dead hobbyhorse”
johnc does not appear to be dead, and I suspect he may not take kindly to being characterized as a horse, hobby or otherwise.
“So, a citation means that ALL the facts came from that source? Hmmm…
perhaps, in an (at least) equally likely case, the citation is for this tidbit:
“Originally a primarily Polish working-class area of small homes, saloons, and churches””
———————————
I can only work with what was given. The alternative to your scenario — that Fremon was the source only for the characterization of the type of neighborhood — leaves the statement of borders unsourced. That’s not much of an encyclopedia in such a case.
And in any event, you haven’t said how I lied. I ask again: Just how did I lie? I accurately quoted (verbatim) Fremon. You accused me of lying. On what basis do you say I lied?
As for being characterized as a horse, that’s been a very common characterization of me in one type of situation over the years, IF you know what I mean AND I think you do.
Not in my hobbies, though. Still, I am open to new adventures.
Hahahahahaha! EW.
“That’s not much of an encyclopedia in such a case.”
ooooh-kay. I guess that’s one conception of an encyclopedia.
Here’s another entry from the same author, referencing the Bucktown section of West Town (which we can all agree stops at Bloomingdale):
http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1342.html
No citation to your source.
“one type of situation””
Yes, its pretty established that you are a horse’s ass about bucktown.
“Here’s another entry from the same author, referencing the Bucktown section of West Town (which we can all agree stops at Bloomingdale):
http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1342.html
No citation to your source.
“one type of situation””
Yes, its pretty established that you are a horse’s ass about bucktown.”
—————————
Your West Town reference is self-referencial: It quotes the enclyclopedia’s Bucktown entry, which in turn misquotes the Fremon book. Repeating a false statement (the encyclopedia’s Bucktown to North Avenue claim) doesn’t make it a true statement.
So no matter how many real estate agents repeat the claim about Bucktown to North, that doesn’t make it so.
As for being a horse’s ass — I’ve been called much worse.
Just to be clear…as far as I know I am the only real estate agent here saying that Bucktown goes to North Ave. Everyone else here making that claim (or Bloomingdale) is not a real estate agent. And many of the other sources are not real estate agents either.
“Just to be clear…as far as I know I am the only real estate agent here saying that Bucktown goes to North Ave. Everyone else here making that claim (or Bloomingdale) is not a real estate agent. And many of the other sources are not real estate agents either.”
————————
Point taken. AND you had a great column on taxing “expensive” homes. Did you see today’s (11/2) Sun Times article on lead in the water pipes?
I’m think that johnc is actually anon, who may be looking to spice things up on here.
Thanks. I hadn’t seen the article but just looked it up. I don’t get what water meters have to do with lead in the water. Article didn’t really explain that. I thought it was purely a function of the service lines. Unless installation of the water meter stirred things up.
The city obviously needs to fix this. It’s just a question of how they are going to get the money.
‘in turn misquotes the Fremon book’
It is NOT quoting the book. You are making the (barely plausible) supposition that it is quoting the book.
“Unless installation of the water meter stirred things up.”
Think that that is the unwritten implication.
But since they didn’t cite to anything, we should assume it was made up and incorrect. Indeed, when I lived in the real Bucktown, there were no water meters at all, so it must be made up.
“It is NOT quoting the book. You are making the (barely plausible) supposition that it is quoting the book.”
—————————–
My bust. It is citing the book. The book says Armitage. The article says North. The article gives no other citation. The article’s assertion of North Avenue is not supported by the only relevant citation — the book — (the book mentions borders and all that).
Water meters, like borders, are immutable, so subjective reality need not apply.
That’s essentially what the Trib article says on the connection between meters and lead levels:
“The Chicago Tribune first reported in 2013 that the city water department and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had found high levels of lead in Chicago tap water after lead service lines had been disturbed by street work or plumbing repairs, including the installation of water meters.”
“One cannot bootstrap a change in facts. Full stop. The fact that someone was lied to about what they were getting when they moved in South of Armitage a mere 20 years ago doesn’t change anything.”
No one was lied to. They walk around every day glad that they live in Bucktown, one of the premiere neighborhoods in the city. Lol.
“The book says Armitage.”
What does it cite to? You?