Reduced $160K and Still For Sale: 1013 W. Webster in Lincoln Park
For months we’ve been following the price reductions on this 3-bedroom penthouse unit at 1013 W. Webster in Lincoln Park.
See some pictures and our last chatter in October 2008 here.
It has been reduced again and is now priced $160,000 under its March 2008 list price and also now $160,000 under its 2006 sales price.
At what price will this sell?
Sara McCarthy and Julie Dorger at Coldwell Banker have the listing. See more pictures here.
Unit #7: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 2 car private garage with storage, no square footage listed
- Sold in July 2006 for $685,000
- Originally listed in March 2008 for $685,000
- Reduced
- Listed in April 2008 for $659,000
- Reduced
- Was listed in June 2008 for $649,000 (included the two car garage)
- Reduced
- Was listed in October 2008 for $598,888
- Reduced
- Currently listed for $525,000 (two car garage still included)
- Assessments are now $271 a month
- Taxes of $8975
- Central Air
Admittedly, not a great building/location but what percentage of the Chicago housing stock would fall in that category? The broader data continues to show deterioration throughout Chicago and Lincoln Park in particular. We just updated our neighborhood market conditions charts. Commentary being updated now. You can find links to the neighborhoods we follow at the bottom of this page:
http://blog.lucidrealty.com/chicago_real_estate_statistics/
Either an awful lot of people didn’t buy smart or only the people who didn’t buy smart are selling right now.
We were going to look at this one but canceled after a drive by. The store fronts on the first floor looked sketchy, and even if well done, are a negative in a small building.
It is the markets’ job to reallocate money from the ignorant to the intelligent, from the lazy to the hard working and studious; from the naive to the educated, and from the speculator to the investor.
And apparently it is now the government’s job to interfere with markets to ensure they do exactly the opposite.
Yup, AMW, what we have here is a market mechanism perfectly reallocating wealth from the wicked to the virtuous.
Anyway.
I do feel genuine compassion for these owners. They are completely and utterly screwed. You can get much more for $100k less than the current ask.
So how exactly is this a penthouse? I lol at these top floor units in 3 flats being called penthouses.
I still heart this area. McGees for the win! Fortunately I don’t need a 500k place to pick up college gals.
In all seriousness though it looks like it is priced much more reasonably now than at first list. I’m normally not a fan of 3/2 condos for 500k but the location for this is quite good and it comes with a two car garage.
This place is a great illustration of how home value fell out of line with price. ($685K to live on a busy street across from DePaul? Yikes.) And this market must bring prices down the appropriate level of value.
But to cast this recession as a reallocation of wealth from the lazy to the hard working? I don’t think I would characterize those who paid too much for homes in July 2006 as lazy or even ignorant. In fact, I doubt that the lazy ever even accumulate wealth, even in a boom economy. Maybe the unfortunate homeowners like these guys were short-sighted, but it adds insult to injury to label them as lazy or ignorant.
Tax records show this resold in April/07 for $635,000. The loan is for $508,000
Recent Sale Previous Sale
Document No.: 0709341039 0628341021
Recorded Date: 04/03/2007 10/10/2006
Amount: $635,000 $686,500
Again, it’s **NOT** a penthouse. It’s on three levels. The Master Bedroom is in the “penthouse”, i.e, it’s upstairs. Absurd, misleading listing.
“Tax records show this resold in April/07 for $635,000. The loan is for $508,000”
The ’06 sale price (and date) don’t match. Sure that isn’t a different unit?
Gary – I love your data but it is yesterday’s news. Sure days on market increased in jan because NO ONE purchased anything in Nov, Dec, and Jan. Are you going to write about how much the market improved when Feb’s numbers come out? There are a lot of units going under contract and as soon as the stimulus is more transparent we will have a lot more.
Would I pay $600,000 to be in this unit. No way! It has no utility. Sure it has 3 bedrooms but how families are going to want to live in this unit? That leaves the single buyer or young married couple to purchase. Not too many of them out there. Value is all about untility. Do you agree?
“Would I pay $600,000 to be in this unit. ”
I sure hope not. They are only asking $525k. But really, who though it was a good idea to pay almost $700k for this place, ever?
Question–is this in the middle or the rear portion of the building? Don’t know what I’m talking about?, look at the aerial–there are three “pods” of the building.
Here are some “contract date” numbers to compare from the MLS for Lake View (8006), Lincoln Park (8007) and Near North (8008). The Feb totals are for 2/1 through 2/12 for each year
8006 Dec 2007 Dec 2008 YOY
Attached 94 48 -48.9%
Detached 10 9 -10.0%
8007
Attached 41 20 -51.2%
Detached 15 17 13.3%
8008
Attached 190 105 -44.7%
Detached 2 2 0.0%
8006 Jan 2007 Jan 2008 Jan 2009 YOY
Attached 152 121 58 -52.1%
Detached 6 6 5 -16.7%
8007
Attached 90 63 27 -57.1%
Detached 12 9 9 0.0%
8008
Attached 492 218 135 -38.1%
Detached 3 1 1 0.0%
8006 Feb 2007 Feb 2008 Feb 2009 YOY
Attached 69 68 32 -52.9%
Detached 8 6 1 -83.3%
8007
Attached 48 37 24 -35.1%
Detached 8 5 5 0.0%
8008
Attached 203 98 54 -44.9%
Detached 0 1 2 100.0%
anon (tfo):
It is for unit #7, the same unit.
The effects are virtually all in the attached inventory–looks like SFH are still (for the most part) holding up across all three neighborhoods. I guess that’s not surprising–just like the low end burst before the higher-end, the condos are bursting before the SFHs.
VB:
Okay. So the MLS data and the Deed records don’t match. Obviously common. Thx.
Is it normal that this place is being called a penthouse? Maybe I’m a bit off with the “lingo” but when I think penthouse, I think highrise. I like the inside but half a M is a little high considering its in a storefront building.
“Is it normal that this place is being called a penthouse?”
No. And it isn’t being called a penthouse in the listing; Sabrina misread it.
The listing calls it a “townhouse condo” and says it has a “penthouse master bedroom”–that is, the master suite takes up the whole top floor–the “penthouse”.
Lauren,
Yeah, I laugh at these things being called penthouses also but it’s standard practice. And as a realtor I have no choice but to list my units the same way or I risk short changing the property.
prices are crashing everywhere folks and declines are accelerating. Trust me on this, I look at a 4-5 places every week. Sellers are getting the message.
“Yeah, I laugh at these things being called penthouses ”
Jeebus people, I’m as critical of realtor-speak as the next one, but these two DID NOT call the unit a penthouse. “Penthouse master BR” is equally absurd, but they don’t claim the unit is a penthouse.
Steve,
I just report the data, so I will be reporting it when things turn someday. However, I am glad that you acknowledge that no one has been buying stuff lately. God help us if the government stimulus package actually reignites a housing bubble.
I find your comments about this place interesting because back on June 25, 2008 your only comment was “Unit 5 sold for $635k in early 2007. Looks like the buyer of unit 7 jumped the gun and over paid. Would you like me to list another 5 closing this week in LP that were profits?”
Now, I can’t put words in your mouth but if you believed this place was such a dog I would think you would have brought that up then. Instead, you didn’t bat an eye at that 635 price you mentioned. Your vision definitely gets better looking backwards.
“God help us if the government stimulus package actually reignites a housing bubble”
I don’t think that is a genuine concern. Sub-prime will remain (relatively) dead for decades; Alt-A is dead, if for no other reason than most of the candidate borrowers ruined their credit scores; and prime jumbos aren’t going to permit 20% 2ds, no matter what the guv’mint does. You’re left with prime conforming, which requires Cali to *not* re-bubble.
I am currently renting in Museum Park Tower 4. I pay 1650 that includes parking, water, heat, internet and soon to be cable. Is this a good deal? I ask because I am looking to rent somewhere else if I can find a better deal in a building with more modern features.
Or where can I find out about rentals in highrise buildings? Thanks for the help
Kadar –
Describe your place a little more – 1 br? sqft? finishes? The best bet for high rises is to find a good deal for a condo rental, not going through a highrise apartment complex (such as Grand Plaza) – I think craigslist is a good place for this, but others may know better sources.
Kadar:
views? floor? bath(s)?
Fullhouse and DD
I live in a 1/1 on the 25th floor facing west. It has hardwood floors, granite and ss apps. It is a nice unit. I was just wondering if I could find something comparable at a lower price thatn 1650.
Gary: As always, that is some great information about individual neighborhoods, inventory and market time on your site.
Thanks for posting the link.
Hey G – Was your 2009 feb data through the 13th for 2007 and 2008, or did you compare those full months to 2009 partial?
It is rather funny how LP and LV’s single family market is actually performing great. What are your thoughts Sabrina? If the economy begins to recover in q3 of 2009 do you really think LP will only then finally see the declines you have anticipated. Why is it holding up so well? Just curious what your opinion is?
Take a look at LP’s closings for Feb. I don’t see any losses. If fact I see a great example. 518 w Armitage was purchased in 2005 for $355k. The owner decided to sell now and hired a Sudler agent as thier realtor. The realtor obviously told the owner they would have to price below their purchase price because of the weak market. They listed at $349,000 ($6k less than th epurchase price in 2005) and the property went under contract in 5 days. Realtors love to tell their clients how bad the market is in hopes of getting a quick 5 day commission. Find yourself a good realtor and it will always save you money…
Steve,
I’m confused. You “see a great example”. But it’s an example of a loss – regardless of how quickly it sold. Sure, it raises suspicion but it’s not a great example of no losses. Show me the profits from someone who purchased in the last 3 years. I haven’t checked yet so it may exist.
Gary, let me help. The SHill started out by stating his truth: “Take a look at LP’s closings for Feb. I don’t see any losses.”
A SHill never does.
Gary – You have the mLS. Take a look yourself. Single familes are moving just fine.
Steve,
I know single families are moving. I was talking about condos. That’s what my data focuses on. That has been the bulk of the volume.
Steve:
I just posted on a house that is listed below its 2003 sales price. For that owner, it’s not exactly “holding up well.” I really doubt if you told a buyer in 2003 that 6 years later they’d be selling at a loss they would have believed you.
Is everything selling at a loss? No.
I’m not watching the SFH market that closely in Lincoln Park- as I cover the whole city on this blog Steve so I’m a bit busy. But the condo and townhouse market is weak right now. There are a lot of examples of sellers taking losses who bought in the last 3 years and now we’re seeing it with those who bought in the last 4 or 5.
And this is in LP.
Took a look at this place awhile back, just to see it. It’s a fairly nicely done, very vertical space. Not for us due to preference, really, and being so close to depaul bars.
Also, the people who developed it told us they plan on keeping a couple of the apartments in the complex. Which translates to me as: They control the condo board. Nothing like telling people who are paying assessments that their vote will be overshadowed. Kind of off-putting IMO.
Let’s take a closer look at the “health” of the LP and LV detached single family sales since 1/1/09. There were 19 sales through yesterday. NOTE: I noticed an error in my post above from February 13th, 2009 at 11:08 am. The 2/1/09-2/12/09 sales for LP were 2, not 5. There was an additional closing on 2/13/09 included below.
The sales are organized by resales, resales with complete rehab or teardown since last sale, and new construction sales.
Note below that the resales are most likely netting below 2003 prices after transaction costs.
Resales:
2214 RACINE 1/13/2009 for $1,365,000 7/30/2007 for $1,400,000
1705 Dayton 1/27/2009 for $760,000 3/24/2004 for $800,000
529 WRIGHTWOOD 2/4/2009 for $915,000 1/23/2004 for $869,000
952 MONTANA 1/14/2009 for $1,050,000 12/24/2003 for $1,000,000
3449 PAULINA 2/4/2009 for $600,000 10/14/2003 for $585,000
1443 MELROSE 1/30/2009 for $825,000 1/8/2002 for $710,000
2248 KENMORE 2/10/2009 for $849,000 8/1/2001 for $670,000
2222 GENEVA TERRACE 1/9/2009 for $2,295,000 7/11/2000 for $1,475,000
1114 Wellington 1/12/2009 for $799,000 12/29/1994 for $533,000
Resales with rehab or teardown since last sale:
1454 HUTCHINSON 1/30/2009 for $862,500 3/20/1997 for $395,000
2640 Wayne 1/7/2009 for $1,050,000 7/26/2002 for $775,000
566 ARLINGTON 1/22/2009 for $1,250,000 5/17/2002 for $470,000
3757 LAKEWOOD 2/9/2009 for $1,375,000 8/31/2005 for $725,000
3760 MAGNOLIA 2/13/2009 for $1,860,000 4/30/2004 for $829,000
2637 GREENVIEW 1/6/2009 for $2,925,000 3/23/1993 for $650,000
New construction with first list date and list price:
1334 WELLINGTON 1/30/2009 for $1,325,000 4/5/2006 for $1,629,000
1135 George 1/15/2009 for $1,575,000 6/10/2008 for $1,775,000
1219 Oakdale 1/8/2009 for $1,712,500 10/28/2008 for $1,850,000
629 SCHUBERT 1/2/2009 for $2,895,000 2/18/2008 for $2,750,000
The correction above was not clear. “There was an additional closing on 2/13/09 included below” refers to an additional LV sale on 2/13/09. There were no additional LP sales for 2/13/09-2/15/09 and the corrected total is 2.
Thanks for the data- as always- G.
So the house I chattered about on Burling wasn’t an anomoly as some of these other homes are also selling for around the 2003 price.
At this sales rate, it would take about 15 months to get rid of all the single family home inventory in LP and Lakeview. And it’s not peak listing period yet.
It does not appear to be accurate to call the detached LV/LP market “healthy.” 2003 prices are now the norm for resales without extensive rehab.
not to quibble (okay, i love quibbling) but i don’t see how you are extracting 2003 prices – i see 2004 prices based on the 4 sales in or near 2003.
1705 Dayton 1/27/2009 for $760,000 3/24/2004 for $800,000
529 WRIGHTWOOD 2/4/2009 for $915,000 1/23/2004 for $869,000
952 MONTANA 1/14/2009 for $1,050,000 12/24/2003 for $1,000,000
3449 PAULINA 2/4/2009 for $600,000 10/14/2003 for $585,000
1705 dayton supports 2003 pricing but the remainder show there is still some appreciation over 2003 levels.
Sorry, I meant after transaction costs.