Move-In Ready Logan Square 2-Flat Cottage: 2329 W. Charleston
This 2-flat cottage at 2329 W. Charleston in Logan Square (west Bucktown?) has been on and off the market since May 2008.
It recently came back on the market for another try.
The two units are as follows:
- Unit #1: 2 bedroom, 1 bath garden apartment- rents for $1000 a month
- Unit #2: 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths owners unit- rents for $2200 a month
The three bedroom portion of the house has some unique features including exposed brick and 6 skylights. It also has renovated kitchen and baths.
Two of the 3 bedrooms are on the second floor with the master bedroom on the top level.
The property also has central air, a 2-car garage, and a hot tub.
Pam Lynch at @Properties has the listing. See the pictures here.
2329 W. Charleston: 2-flat, 5 bedrooms, 3.5 baths, 2 car garage
- Sold in May 1989 for $82,000
- Sold in September 1994 for $155,000
- Sold in January 1995 for $171,000
- Sold in April 1998 for $356,000
- Sold in November 2001 for $400,000
- Sold in December 2005 for $647,000
- Originally listed in May 2008
- On and off the market since
- Currently listed for $699,000
- Taxes of $7607
- Central Air
- Each unit has its own washer/dryer
- Hot tub for 7 people
Place looks nice enough, but I’d rather get it for 350k, sans in-law and hot tub.
Definitely B’town–east of Western, South of Kennedy is def. B’town.
Short lot is a bummer–24×100.
vht tour is stupid pix2music montage. total waste of bandwidth.
If the basement apartment were nice enough to convert to SFH living space somewhat easily (ignore access issues), I’d like it at ~$600k.
“I’d rather get it for 350k”
Yeah, and I’d like the place on Cleveland for $1.1mm, with an extra lot.
I have a friend who lives right near here. Ground level full floor apartment with a yard. 2-bedroom. Rent is around $1200/month.
Sure he has no parking and only one bathroom and one less bedroom, but its a rental that actually makes sense.
Also huge caution to anybody that thinks a purchase price would make sense based on any advertised rental income. This is also mis-represented in the MLS as a SFH when its really a two-flat, as well. Two-flats tend to trade at a discount for the same structure as SFHs (since the bubble).
If anybody buys this for anywhere near ask and is dependent on that rental income to help make this work its a disaster waiting to happen.
2001 price plus reno costs looks about right. Maybe 530k?
This ask price is offensive, nay, obscene. Too bad for Mr. 2005 purchaser theres no more funny money mortgages for the 700k segment.
I am dying to know the terms of that December 2005 mortgage. Did they buy in time to not get priced out forever?
“I am dying to know the terms of that December 2005 mortgage.”
80% first and a 10% 2d. If you want more specifics than that, maybe HD’s clerk can help out.
“80% first and a 10% 2d. If you want more specifics than that, maybe HD’s clerk can help out.”
Hmm…hey Russ are 80/10’s still available on jumbos like this anymore? Sounds like their target market for resale evaporated along with this speculative mortgage option. Epic fail.
They’re busy doing other things today. I’ve got two clerks now.
“80% first and a 10% 2d. If you want more specifics than that, maybe HD’s clerk can help out.”
“Epic fail.”
Even you think it’s worth more today than their first mortgage. And you think the rents are legit–the rent is basically enough to service the debt after taxes. So long as they’ve had no major maintenace/replacement issues, they’re still okay, tho likely to take a small-ish capital loss.
“Move in ready” what does that mean? Vacant and improperly maintained?
@Bob:
2nd mortgages are very hard to get these days above 80% CLTV. The ones that will go above it often have very funny guidelines that rule out most buyers. I know of one that might consider this, but I am not sure if they will do it on a 2 unit. Condos are definitely dead for second mortgages in most cases.
Some of the more competitive jumbo lenders might not touch it just based on the fact it is a 2 unit property.
Financing will not be a cake walk on this property. If they really wanted to move it, it needs to be priced where a borrower can get it for 10% down and still have a conventional mortgage which is $593,166.
This property is listed under two different numbers on Redfin-one as a two flat and one as a s.f. The rehab looks to be waaay above above average in terms of quality-so I think it is wasted on a multi unit.
I think this property might do better if it were a bona fide single family with nicely finished basement. It is too expensive, with too little rent from the ground floor to justify the owner occupier scenario.
Nice looking place, but they should have converted (or maybe it’s deconverted) this to a SFH.
Cute place. Too bad it’s not a SFH…
No idea on price. Don’t know the hood well enough. Though based on rents waaaayy overpriced.
“Nice looking place, but they should have converted (or maybe it’s deconverted) this to a SFH.”
Unfortunately HD while this technique may work for two-flats that look like spacious homes when deconverted, I doubt this is the case with two flats that look like cottages to start with. In fact this is the first instance of a two-flat cottage I’ve seen and its pretty laughable. Actually its hilarious they think its worth 700k.
I would need substantial narcotics to be on the same economic plane as this owner.
Chicago’s older working-class neighborhoods, as well as older suburbs such as Cicero, are filled w/two-flat (and even three-flat) cottage-style buildings. These houses were originally built with a main unit and a secondary unit, so that the owner could live in one unit and rent the other unit to help cover household costs and as additional housing for extended family members. These buildings were sold to immigrant working-class families, and generations of ethnic families have cycled through these neighborhoods.
Some of these houses are located in gentrifying neighborhoods and become single-family house conversions. This house is a hybrid, because the main unit was upgraded and expanded into the attic while the rental unit remained (and unphotographed in the listing).
There is a narrow market for “lives like a single-family house” multi-family two-flats and three-flats for owner occupancy. I know a number of architects who fit into that category at some point in there lives. There are some homebuyers who want an urban home with some income production to support the mortgage payments. The trade-off is landlording – we’ve done that ourselves when we owned a north-side three-flat. Though landlording is a continual responsibility, we discovered that prospective tenants self-sort themselves, and that the most responsible and quiet tenants tend to prefer an owner-occupied building with that additional degree of landlord-scrutiny and daily monitoring. Our experiences with tenants we selected was excellent – no late payments, no loud parties, no damages, etc.
Like with anything, YMMV. At this point in the real estate bust you need to purchase a unit with a low enough cost basis to ensure a positive cash flow every month, or in the case of this unit, a low enough cost basis where the $1,000 a month rent actually off-sets a decent chunk of the mortgage payments (which it doesn’t here).
Finding renters – at all – is also an issue. I review craigslist for a couple of different neighborhoods on a monthly or so basis and it’s often the same apartments listed over and over again. And it’s not that these units are overpriced, it’s that there are just too many apartments for rent and too few renters; with the jobless situation it’s been an extraordinarily tough winter to rent properties. If you didn’t rent by October your property will probably sit vacant until spring.
“Our experiences with tenants we selected was excellent – no late payments, no loud parties, no damages, etc.”
“They’re busy doing other things today. I’ve got two clerks now.”
Ah, the 8th floor at the Daley Center. Complete with the hum of date stamp machines it’s the Madison Square Garden for Chancery lawyers…
“2nd mortgages are very hard to get these days above 80% CLTV”
Russ — what sort of front / end back ends apply for jumbos you are underwriting? Assume a dual-income couple with about $40,000 in base monthly W2 income. FICO 760+. Idea is to do a $1,000,000 first (and only) on LTV of less than 75%. Chicago Bancorp will do these deals, what about Perl?
JMM, pretend it’s 2006 and leverage yourself 5x income and buy a $2.5 mil+ home. Because that’s what a lot of people did. You know a dollar home isn’t what it used to be and in some circles, if you’re only looking at a million dollar home, you’re considered to be ‘on a budget’.
“#JMM on February 23rd, 2010 at 8:58 am
“2nd mortgages are very hard to get these days above 80% CLTV”
Russ — what sort of front / end back ends apply for jumbos you are underwriting? Assume a dual-income couple with about $40,000 in base monthly W2 income. FICO 760+. Idea is to do a $1,000,000 first (and only) on LTV of less than 75%. Chicago Bancorp will do these deals, what about Perl?”
Why borrow against income? Just get a LIBOR facility from Northern @ a 250 bps spread for 20% of your liquid securities? I hear that is what wealthy LP families are doing these days.
“Why borrow against income? Just get a LIBOR facility from Northern @ a 250 bps spread for 20% of your liquid securities? I hear that is what wealthy LP families are doing these days.”
Because, JMM, no one who is *actually* wealthy needs to borrow money. Anyone who does that is just making it clear that they are poseurs.
[/sarcasm] (just in case)
Or you could do that. However, your liquid securities in 2006 were probably worth a lot more then than now.
But since you mentioned “$40k in base income” I think it’s warranted to assume that’s what you intended to do.
“#JMM on February 23rd, 2010 at 9:07 am
Why borrow against income? Just get a LIBOR facility from Northern @ a 250 bps spread for 20% of your liquid securities? I hear that is what wealthy LP families are doing these days.”
I’d like this house at this price point if the SFH conversion was already done… I don’t want some clowns living in my basement if I paid 700k for this place… and I certainly would want some privacy with my 7 person hot tub!
“But since you mentioned “$40k in base income” I think it’s warranted to assume that’s what you intended to do. ”
Differentiating between the hypothetical (the Perl question) and what I might do, since you implied this was a personal question which it isn’t.
“Or you could do that. However, your liquid securities in 2006 were probably worth a lot more then than now.”
Depends on the liquid securities. Mid-long duration fixed income portfolios have done very, very well…
@JMM:
No one goes above 45% back end ratios. The most attractive jumbos generally cut off at 38% these days.
@JMM: Yes, we do those deals.
That 38pc is backend of gross, right?
Yes…
Backend = (PITI + car, student loans, credit cards)/Gross Mo. Income
Russ, how often do potential borrowers plow through the 38 and/or 45 pc backend ratio?
Why is it gross instead of net income… so stupid
“The most attractive jumbos generally cut off at 38% these days.”
What’s the approximate rate currently for those attractive jumbos?
Sorry, did I miss the front end? 28%? Or is it higher?
Shit, my 45pc back end ratio after throwing in plenty of student loan payment is like 5x my rent. That’s insane, I couldn’t imagine paying 5x my rent just in mortgage interest. Even at 38pc that’s
4x my rent.
I know I live below my means but still, 45 of gross for debt service, plus 25pc taxes, some for savings, utilities, food, emergency fund, unanticipated expenses and you can blow through that money really fast.
About 4.625% for a 7/1 ARM. Need 35% of loan amount in reserves though. Most lenders really don’t look at front end all that closely. The backend is what matters.
I rarely see clients pushing the DTI limit that much but most of my clients tend to be the cream of the crop. Occasionally, there are reasons good borrowers have higher than normal DTIs, but we rarely see someone just trying to buy more house than they could legitimately afford these days.
One of the things I often try to tell people is that you always qualify for more than you can actually afford because the banks don’t look at how much you spend on misc shit each month – cell phones, travel, clothes, going out to eat, etc. Most folks should try to keep their DTI around 25% or less if they really want to enjoy their life instead of just working to pay their mortgage. When the DTI rules were developed, I don’t think people spent as much on extra stuff as they do these days.
VA loans actually underwrite pretty strict as we have to include child care costs in the DTI if you have kids under 12.
HD, depends on your income too. If you make $500k a year, even with a 45% DTI, you still have a lot of money left over whereas a guy making $50k a year probably could barely buy groceries.
People are trying to live more frugally these days though. Big mortgages are definitely a disadvantage when it comes to mobility and freedom and folks are starting to see that reality.
“I know I live below my means but still, 45 of gross for debt service, plus 25pc taxes, some for savings, utilities, food, emergency fund, unanticipated expenses and you can blow through that money really fast.”
True, but at the upper bracket you tend to get a lot of scale on the necessities. A lot of that spending becomes very discretionary (which is one of the arguments for a progressive income tax structure). And again, if you haven’t built any net worth with 500k+ in current income each year, you are an irresponsible person (or a professional athlete).
Russ — when you say “cream of the crop” what sort of monthly gross incomes are you referring to?
“True, but at the upper bracket you tend to get a lot of scale on the necessities.”
Yeah, there’s only so much you can spend on cell phones and cable tv, and the entry price isn’t 90% less. And utility expenses are the same thing, tho it’s easier to spend 5x if you have a really big house.
The big variables are vacation, car, entertainment (restaurants/opera/whatever), clothing. And kids–nanny/private school are big expenses. And most of those are things that do not fit into true “necessities”.
Yeah at $500k plus you’d be foolish, an athlete or in southern CA not if you spent it all. i’m talking about $125, $150, $175k.
JMM: Just saying I don’t see a lot of marginal buyers whether it is income or credit. Most of my clients tend to be high income young professionals… attorneys, consultants, bankers, doctors, etc. You know, the people with six figure incomes in jobs that don’t really exist in Chicago (sarcasm).
There aren’t many borderline buyers out there anymore anyway though. Guidelines are too strict and financing is too costly.
“Most of my clients tend to be high income young professionals… ”
I am sure the b-school network helps in this regard.
Anyway, I was just curious, going back to some of the hotly debated income discussions, what 95th percentile was for your underwriting business.
“And kids–nanny/private school are big expenses.”
True on some of those costs, but they are less fixed that you might think.
For example, in Chicago, I think it’s unusual for a young family to have a nanny unless they are DI professionals. So in a sense this expense is collateralized by the lower earner’s job. If he/she exits, this very large expense goes away. I know people whose nannies cost 2x their PITI.
Private schools — won’t touch that one. But as has been discussed, this can discretionary depending on where you buy (save for special needs children).
“True on some of those costs, but they are less fixed that you might think.”
you misread, I think, as I put those into the “big variables” category, but used a period to avoid arguing about it. And I wouldn’t put them in the true necessity category (as some otherwise variable things are, eg, more (or very) expensive clothing for certain jobs).
How do lenders differentiate between base salary and bonuses these days? Should a prospective borrower assume that they can only use a base salary to qualify or will they get some income credit for an annual bonus?
“Why is it gross instead of net income… so stupid”
Because bankers don’t want a double job as a tax analyst/preparer.
“How do lenders differentiate between base salary and bonuses these days? ”
Correct me if wrong Russ but I believe they include bonus/ie: look at prior years W2. Which means you can’t use an upcoming bonus to qualify for a loan–only for a downpayment when it actually arrives.
I know lenders are always looking backward, but there has to be some adjustment for bonus income. Almost all bonuses I know of are at least partially at risk and that includes financial services, managerial, sales, etc.
Also the Case-Shiller index was released for Chicagoland today. Prices fell 1.6% to a CS value of 127.27.
Of the 20 metropolitan areas surveyed Chicago fared the worst by a wide margin with Dallas coming in second with a decline of -0.9%.
You can only use bonuses for qualifying if you have at least a two year history and they average the bonus over 24 months. A huge decline in the bonus could cause some underwriters to discount it altogether. Some banks weren’t counting bonuses of investment bankers late last year since they knew many were at risk, but I don’t think they are that extreme now with the underwriting.
This is one of those instances where we see some folks with higher DTIs because their bonuses might be excluded.
Unless you are the extreme like an investment banker who can get many times their base salary in compensation, most people should buy based on their base salaries and assume bonuses are just that… bonuses.
The bank is going to want to see w-2s, 30 days paystubs, and two years tax returns.
Sounds a lot like the paperwork needed for a loan mod or a chapter 7 bankruptcy.
“The bank is going to want to see w-2s, 30 days paystubs, and two years tax returns.”
HD:
That is just the tip of the iceberg… getting a mortgage these days is like a root canal. The amount of paperwork is astonishing. The sad thing is that most of it more out of compliance and regulations than actually assessing credit risk.
If bankers actually knew who they were lending to (no offense Russ), some of this could be averted.
Oh and personal recourse. That might also help.
jmm: no offense taken. I don’t make the rules, I just follow them. Banks got away from actually knowing and caring about their customers a long time ago. Unfortunately, you are just a number…a FICO score that is.
Unless you are worth tens of millions of dollars, you no longer get custom banking services these days.
The reality is that consumers like being treated like crap as long as it can save a few pennies here and there. People talk a good game about wanting personal service, etc but aren’t willing to pay for it.
BTW – IL has recourse on first mortgages although it’s rarely pursued; there is most definitely recourse on seconds and the banks are starting to file the lawsuits. I’m seeing more and more 2nds suing just on the note w/o a foreclosure.
OTOH, I found out the other day that one of my aspiring land baron clients (with multiple foreclosures) was told by the bank that his property in Pullman is costing the bank too much money to pay the taxes, fines and attorneys fees, so, they’re releasing their mortgages. And just like that he’s going to own one of his properties in the free and clear. We both said that we’ll believe it when we see it but that’s what the bank’s lawyers told him in court.
“JMM on February 23rd, 2010 at 2:38 pm
If bankers actually knew who they were lending to (no offense Russ), some of this could be averted.
Oh and personal recourse. That might also help”
“The reality is that consumers like being treated like crap as long as it can save a few pennies here and there. People talk a good game about wanting personal service, etc but aren’t willing to pay for it.”
I don’t consider dealing with impersonal systems and rules and tellers who don’t know me to be akin to being treated like crap. And most of us save more than a few pennies. This is a major city not some podunk backwater so I don’t care if my banker is one I know from the gym or golfcourse, etc.
“People talk a good game about wanting personal service, etc but aren’t willing to pay for it.”
I’d be ready to correct such people. I don’t see how any (legal) personal service my local commercial banker can possibly offer me that would compensate for increased costs/fees/etc.
“OTOH, I found out the other day that one of my aspiring land baron clients (with multiple foreclosures) was told by the bank that his property in Pullman is costing the bank too much money to pay the taxes, fines and attorneys fees, so, they’re releasing their mortgages. And just like that he’s going to own one of his properties in the free and clear. We both said that we’ll believe it when we see it but that’s what the bank’s lawyers told him in court.”
And they will sue him on the note, won’t they? Releasing the mortgage shouldn’t take away any recourse they have, other than foreclosure (obviously), unless someone did a very good job negotiating the terms of the (form) note and mortgage.
Bob, I am speaking in generalities, but I have found that a lot (not all) of consumers will say they want XYZ, but don’t really understand what it cost to be able to effectively provide XYZ and only look at their bottom line.
If you don’t need personal service, that is great for you. I typically like being able to work with people who know me beyond some customer id#. Everything isn’t always black and white and as JMM pointed out, banks used to actually care about knowing who they lent money too, but they no longer do as everything is transaction based instead of relationship based.
I care more about value as opposed to who is the cheapest. Sometimes it is hard to see the value in relationships and service until you actually need it.
anon(tfo) I guess you’re right they can sue him on the note, but I hope that doesn’t happen. He’ll go just BK again anyway. But he’ll likely lose the house in BK, then again, it’s so tough to sell properties in the bad areas of teh southside the trustee may not even bother.
“He’ll go just BK again anyway.”
Did he not get a discharge before, or has it been 8 years?
“the trustee may not even bother”
T’ee would probably deed it to the city, for back taxes, no? Might get his vig on the property then.
This old firm client has to wait until 2011 to file again. He’ll pay the back taxes to keep the property so it won’t be sold at a tax sale. however, if the trustee thinks he can sell it and net $15-20k after paying my client the homeowner’s exemption ($15,000), he might be able to slide it through BK. Cyberhomes, Zillow, eappraisal says that it’s only with $16k but normally you would expect a historic area like pullman to be worth a little bit more but who knows.
“you would expect a historic area like pullman to be worth a little bit more but who knows.”
Bwahahaha you’re smoking the same crack the journalists were that touted the whole “born into a Pullman crib” BS.
http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/332.html
Sorry HD but the liberal arts major that wrote that Chicago history encyclopedia entry isn’t actually in the real estate market by any stretch of the imagination. You need to discount sources going forward, especially sources from people who think they are smart because they have a college degree but are really just liberal arts majors who know tee-tee about re-all-it-ty.
Pullman is one of the most impoverished and poor areas of Chicago. No encyclopedia entry is going to change that. If anything zillow is on track overvaluing homes by 10% and its really worth 14k.
That 3 block area of historic Pullman is pretty cool but the area surrounding it is very dangerous. I’ve been there twice.
“BTW – IL has recourse on first mortgages although it’s rarely pursued; there is most definitely recourse on seconds and the banks are starting to file the lawsuits.”
Well, my limited understanding is this is only the case if you contest the foreclosure. If you do a deed in lieu or consent foreclosure, there is no possibility of a deficiency judgment beyond court costs. So what I meant was *true* personal recourse for actual damages.
Seconds are a different story, agreed.
JMM: Yes, in theory, but banks aren’t very generous about giving deeds in lieu. Someone once described banks as very good at doing the same thing over and over again, like servicing a mortgage or foreclosing on a property but when you ask them to do anything out of the ordinary, like a deed in lieu, it gets screwed up or just doesn’t happen at all. And there is a lot of truth to that statement. (which can also explain why HAMP is so screwy).
Foreclosure is really the only way to wipe out a second or any other liens on the property. Deeds in Lieu work only in few and limited instances as long as their aren’t any second mortgages, HOA liens, tax liens, mechanics liens, etc.
For all the foreclosures going on, I’ve seen very few, if any, deeds in lieu. And I’ve seen a lot of foreclosures come across my desk in some way shape or form.
Personal deficiencies are a different story, judges as a rule, at least in cook and the surrounding counties, don’t like to give them. The law clearly allows for them, but, from what my understanding is, chancery is a court of equity, and as a policy it’s not equitable to give a deficiency judgment on a first mortgage. So the bank forecloses, sells it at a foreclosure auction, loses a ton of money, and then comes back to court saying “judge – we want a deficiency judgment” and the judge says “too bad – you got your collateral, that’s good enough.” and it’s been that way for as long as I can remember, which is at least 8 or 9 years. Which basically puts us on par with the CA non-recourse rule which is actually written into the statute.
Which is why we have a common law system, I guess.
“The law clearly allows for them, but, from what my understanding is, chancery is a court of equity, and as a policy it’s not equitable to give a deficiency judgment on a first mortgage.”
Even on investment properties? Seems to me, “equitable” wrt your home is different from “equitable” wrt a speculative investment. BK code seems to treat them differently, too. And the tax code def. does.
Were I a bank with a LOT of those cases at once, and the judge denied the deficiency, I’d take a stab at appealing them en masse.
You know it depends on the bank. Most of the ‘investor’ properties of the bubble all had a box checked on the mortgage app that said ‘owner occupied’ at the closing and then as soon as they left the closing tablet the decided to rent it out instead. It’s too much of a hassle for the banks to figure out whether the property was owner occupied or not. they just check to see if it’s vacant or occupied. It’s difficult to determine if the owner is the person actually living there.
I know for a fact that we’ve gone after personal deficiencies on investment properties and we have a hard time getting them but I think we do get them. But we don’t represent any of the usual suspects like chase, countryside, wells, etc. Our banks loans were true investor loans and were labeled as such none of which were securitized.
“Even on investment properties?”
Sold for $634k. . . which would be below ’05 sale price, if you’re checking.
Well I misjudged this one. However we know that the 2005 purchaser used 90% financing for that 647k purchase price.
Out of strong curiosity can any of the legal beagles on here figure out the financing used for the 634k purchase?
Back on the market at $585k.
Whoa, it was like a whole different CC world back then.
Place seems not bad for someone who can’t afford an SFH in bucktown at the moment.
It seems like MFH have taken a bigger hit than SFH over the last several years.
“It seems like MFH have taken a bigger hit than SFH over the last several years.””
Because the price of MFH should be based upon imputed rents and cash flow, not how much you can borrow, unlike much of the SFH house market (and especially that in the green zone) which is based on the size of the loan the occupants can take. 40 yo partner at mid-sized law firm? Go ahead, here’s $800,000, go compete with all the other 40 yo partners from various professions for that 4 bedroom renovated victorian in Roscoe Village; and watch the prices buoy up so high.
“victorian in Roscoe Village”
???!?!?!? Converted two-flat, if “victorian” at all. Which (along with teardown value) is what drove 2-/3-flat prices over the past 15 years. Take away (most) of that, and the values dropped pretty quickly.
Maybe in some sub-markets the teardown value drove the price of all pricing but in general, I saw *plenty* of MFH sale values that were driven almost exclusively by the size of the mortgage the buyer could obtain. Buyers got pre-approved for the maximum sized mortgage and went shopping. Imputed rents, cash flow, etc, none of this had anything to do with the price of MFH for a long time, and certainly not in the GZ.
The buyer hoped (dreamed?) that capital appreciation would exceed the rental loss during the time period they held the property.
“The buyer hoped (dreamed?) that capital appreciation would exceed the rental loss during the time period they held the property.”
And the capital appreciation would come from future teardown/conversion value. Any other expectation was a fundamental misunderstanding of the asset class.
And your belief otherwise is additional evidence of your deep cynicism.
“And your belief otherwise is additional evidence of your deep cynicism.”
I don’t think the unsophisticated investor really thought much or cared whether the capital appreciation came from increased imputed rents, tear-down value, conversion, or if the money just came from another greater fool willing to pay more.
But all that aside, the extraordinarily low returns on MFH in the GZ is one of the reasons the rental market in the GZ is filled with crappy flats and decrepit vintage courtyards. Which i suppose, in the end, why remodel a crappy rental two flat if the only potential buyers are developers who plan to tear it down.
“the extraordinarily low returns on MFH in the GZ is one of the reasons the rental market in the GZ”
That must be the reason large RE investment firms are snatching up rental properties in the GZ.
I have to agree; there isn’t much MFH supply on the market right now.
“That must be the reason large RE investment firms are snatching up rental properties in the GZ.”
RE investors invest in real estate. That’s what they do.