Rehabbed 2/2 in the Hancock Has Reduced $149,000: 175 E. Delaware in the Gold Coast
This 2-bedroom on the 68th floor of the John Hancock at 175 E. Delaware in the Gold Coast came on the market in June 2018.
Yes, I’m still calling it the John Hancock until they announce the new name.
Built in 1969, it has 703 units and rental parking. It’s a full service building with a pool, a supermarket and doormen.
This unit has been rehabbed.
It has wide plank dark wood floors.
The kitchen has white cabinets, stainless steel Bosch appliances and a tile backsplash along with a breakfast bar.
It has no central air, but it has wall unit cooling.
While the Hancock now allows washer/dryer in the unit, this unit doesn’t appear to have it. However, the building has laundry on every floor, or every other floor, I believe.
There is an attached rental garage.
This unit has city views as it faces west (see the picture of the view in the listing.)
It came on the market in June 2018 for $599,000 and has been reduced $149,000 to $450,000.
Is the west facing view the reason this hasn’t sold?
Rashauna Scott at Kale Realty has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #6801: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1450 square feet
- Sold in October 2017 for $410,000
- Originally listed in June 2018 for $599,000
- Reduced numerous times
- Currently listed at $450,000
- Assessments of $908 a month (includes doorman, cable, scavenger, snow removal)
- Taxes of $6762
- No central air- but it has wall units
- No washer/dryer in the unit
- Parking is rental in the building’s garage
- Bedroom #1: 17×11
- Bedroom #2: 17×10
I can’t freaking stand the monochrome motif… when some brown chairs are you pop of color thats just sad and depressing and it reminds me of a mental institution or something
Well. They appear to have put more than $40K in to it and carried for a year so I guess they are ready to cut their losses.
Are free-falling elevators not a selling point? Have they sprinkled the common areas yet?
You could not pay me to live in this building. HOWEVER this is approaching excellent deal territory, even with the assessment.
Shocking really as it has the preferred non-lake views
Really dipped into the old color palette on this one
I read an article the other day about how “bold colors are making a comeback in 2019”. Their examples? Dark gray, dark blueish-gray, and black. BOLD!!
This unit looks very narrow, and I dislike the one-room functioning as three (LR, DR, kitchen). Also, it’s unfortunate that even on the 68th floor, part of the view looks into another building.
That said, this is pretty cheap for a Hancock 2-bedroom. I’ve noticed prices going down in this building quite a bit over the last year. Maybe it’s a good buyer”s market. I’d want mine a bit higher up and facing north, however.
“I can’t freaking stand the monochrome motif… when some brown chairs are you pop of color thats just sad and depressing and it reminds me of a mental institution or something”
The one blue pillow on the bed too. The pictures look like some kind of weird whiter version of a sepia tone. As some kind of art, they’re almost interesting. Like hey, this is all white, but here’s a blue pillow in the middle. But as actual interior design and listing photos? w-t-h
This 90th floor 2-BR in the Hancock looks north and the view is far better than the one we’re talking about. Unfortunately the decor is horrible, so it needs a lot of work to make it presentable. But the view might make up for that. This is a pretty good price for a world-class panorama just four floors below the observatory.
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Chicago-IL-60611/condo,apartment_duplex,townhouse_type/2090430980_zpid/84613_rid/2-_beds/50024-_price/205-_mp/41.901279,-87.610828,41.891632,-87.626063_rect/15_zm/
I’d much rather have the 90th floor one and rehab it, except that reportedly rehabbing in the Hancock is a nightmare, so that concern would need to be resolved. (And this just one of the reasons I would not buy a place in the Hancock).
And, even so, the price is hugely different. Even if one ups the downpayment to 20% for either (and if you are looking in the $450K range with your downpayment, unlikely you can do 20% on a $675K place), the monthly difference would be $3800 (with low Redfin 4.25% interest rates) vs. $5500 (same rates, real higher taxes and assessments), before any reno.
The biggest problem is they only have laundry rooms. Sure, they are on every other floor, but, still. If you do laundry frequently, as we do, that’s a non starter. An interesting “perk” in this building if you live there, you are guaranteed an immediate table at the Cheesecake Factory. So there that. There are 30 people on the board so getting anything done is a nightmare. Sudler manages the place and the president, Steve Levy is a nasty man so dealing with that company is difficult. All in all, it’s a good deal if you are one of those type of people that are apathetic about everything.
Stephanie – I didn’t know that about rehabbing there. I’m sure you’re right, but I do see a lot of rehabbed units in the building, including some I’ve been inside, so I know it does get done. But perhaps with some bureaucratic BS to go through. And yes, the costs on the 90th floor 2BR are much higher than the one on 68. Not sure why, but maybe it’s a bigger unit?
“I’d much rather have the 90th floor one and rehab it, except that reportedly rehabbing in the Hancock is a nightmare, so that concern would need to be resolved. (And this just one of the reasons I would not buy a place in the Hancock).”
Stephanie: you are a rare buyer. 99% of buyers would never want to rehab. They would buy the renovated one and be done with it. Even if it costs a lot more.
“Have they sprinkled the common areas yet?”
All Chicago buildings had to comply with this requirement years ago.
Sudler Management is reason enough to avoid this building.
Link is dead. (or I’m a luddite today.) Says “delisted.”
“Posted by Sabrina
December 2, 2018
“Have they sprinkled the common areas yet?”
All Chicago buildings had to comply with this requirement years ago.”
So the common areas ARE spinkled? My read on the info in the link below is that the units themselves are not since older residential uses are exempt from the requirement and since they are exempted, they simply haven’t addressed it, even though it is a life safety issue that impacts resale value (among other even more important things). Perhaps the hallways are sprinkled and not the units themselves? Is that what you meant? Are the demising walls between units fire-proof?
https://www.femoran.com/fe-moran-fire-protection/sprinkler-concerns-in-john-hancock-center
Residential buildings were not required to install sprinkler systems if they complied with the other provisions of the Life Safety Ordinance. Because the Hancock is a mixed-use building it’s a bit more complicated (and as I understand it is comprised of difference ownership units, which also affects the elevator situation) and one would have to check the City’s information on what they were required to do.
“Perhaps the hallways are sprinkled and not the units themselves? Is that what you meant?”
Yes. From what I understand, it’s virtually impossible to put sprinklers into individual older construction units. They can, however, do the hallways, which is what was required. This is what nearly all older vintage buildings did, as well as those built in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. I believe by the 90s most buildings were putting the sprinklers in the individual units.
You would have to look into what other fire protection an individual building has. The older buildings have fire doors to the units and other things like that. I know some buildings require that you have at least one fire extinguisher in your unit, and check that you have it, every year. They also check the smoke detectors yearly.
The rule is to “contain” a high rise fire. They want to keep it confined to one unit.
“Link is dead. (or I’m a luddite today.) Says “delisted.””
Then they took it off the market.
That’s pretty common after an appearance on Cribchatter.
“The biggest problem is they only have laundry rooms.”
I’m pretty sure that the Hancock allows you to add it to your unit now. I’m not sure why they didn’t on this rehab.
“Yes. From what I understand, it’s virtually impossible to put sprinklers into individual older construction units. They can, however, do the hallways, which is what was required. This is what nearly all older vintage buildings did, as well as those built in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. I believe by the 90s most buildings were putting the sprinklers in the individual units.”
That’s actually incorrect – most vintage buildings replaced doors, installed alarms, elevator recall systems, etc, but not sprinklers in common areas. Sprinklers were required by the 80’s in certain classes of residential high rises. Commercial buildings, on the other hand, were not exempt and had to be sprinklered, though many are still not fully complete with the projects.
The whole intent of the LSE was to enable buildings to improve fire safety without adding sprinkler systems the installation of which is intrusive (both the process and often, the aesthetics after as well). During the process the State Fire Marshall tried to push for sprinklers again and was shut down – with legislation if I remember correctly. It was a huge undertaking and expense for a lot of smaller, middle-class (and lower) buildings.
I kind of like that 90’th floor unit. Dated yes, but very awesome. Lightly used too, it looks like it was new even though it’s years old. Love the red toilet!
A much nicer Hancock 2 bedroom below. A bit more expensive but to me would be worth it.
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/condo,apartment_duplex,townhouse_type/2087614806_zpid/2-_beds/50024-_price/204-_mp/41.900949,-87.622723,41.898542,-87.626532_rect/17_zm/
“That’s actually incorrect – most vintage buildings replaced doors, installed alarms, elevator recall systems, etc, but not sprinklers in common areas.”
Maybe the 1920s buildings couldn’t do it for cost reasons then. But I know some of the 1960s and 1970s buildings put the sprinklers in the hallways.
Nevertheless, the fire issues were years ago. Some building had million dollar special assessments for it, though, so I’m assuming it was more than “installed alarms” for that price. But it’s all done now. Not an issue anymore.
Some newer buildings did, but most didn’t – it depended on how they scored on the LSE evaluation, sometimes there was no choice about adding at least partial sprinkler systems. Replacing doors and upgrading alarms was still cheaper for most buildings. The alarm systems and elevator recall weren’t cheap since it usually required full control replacement for the elevators and upgrading them to code – easily 7 figures per car – nor were unit doors (rear unit doors on vintage buildings typically had to be replaced as did stairwell doors).
There is still a spectre haunting high-rise residential buildings in the form of the state fire Marshall who was also pushing for sprinklers in buildings under 80 feet and may again.
The unit is Pending