River North Concrete Loft at 333 W. Hubbard Sells For Over the 2005 Sales Price
We chattered about this 2-bedroom, 2 bath concrete loft at 333 W. Hubbard in River North several times as it reduced its asking price.
The loft finally sold – and for far more than most of you predicted.
See our prior chatter here.
Unit #710: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1197 square feet
- Sold in March 2005 for $317,000
- Was listed in December 2008 for $365,000 (included the parking)
- Reduced
- Was listed in February 2009 for $350,000 (included the parking)
- Sold in March 2009 for $330,400 (I don’t know if this included the parking or not)
- Assessments of $584 a month
- Taxes of $4450
- Barbara O’Connor at Koenig & Strey had the listing
I have seen many of these units over the years…the building is popular with younger couples and first time buyers…it is a good location to the River North action and EBC.
These units prices are pretty stable and havent seen a lot of appreciation over the years…
I’m pretty sure that price included parking.
i’m surprised this did so well. totally blah unit, a tiny bit dated, and based on prior comments not a neighborhood that appeals to everyone.
But it is refreshing to see someplace seel for higher than 2005 price, i must say. although the sky is still falling, maybe not so hard and not so fast, at least today.
“The loft finally sold – and for far more than most of you predicted”
Huh? I see only two posts in the previous chatter that actually opinined on the ask or eventual sales price of this unit.
Sonies was dead on: he said “Lower it another 20k and you’ll start to get offers… Being serious here.”
“a” opined that $330K was still way too high.
And art mentioned that other 2/2’s in the building had recently sold or were under contract for $360-390K. He didn’t know if they were really comparable, but if they are remotely comparable they suggest that prices are still falling in this building.
There will always be buyers who pay too much. There are so many people out there that are completely clueless and have no basic understanding of economics and finance. So when these people go out to open houses and the listing agent tells them that “Now is the time to buy” and if you don’t buy now you are going to “miss out on the opportunity of a lifetime”, they believe it.
MJ,
Agreed. Oddly enough I’d expect to see sanity returning to the higher-end of the market a lot quicker than the sub-500k segment. With the higher end of the market cheap financing is gone (no conforming rates), and its not typically the first property people own and they’ve generally learned a thing or two about budgeting and how expensive owning is by then.
Right now data does not seem to support this as jumbos are default at much higher rates than conforming loans, but maybe this is due to places like FL & CA? Not sure..
No doubt, MJ. Some need to experience reality before they will acknowledge it. Even then, it will be someone else’s fault.
The correction will occur regardless what anyone “feels” or “believes.”
“Sonies was dead on: he said “Lower it another 20k and you’ll start to get offers… Being serious here.” ”
Dayum I nailed it!
Look on the bright side; this seller dodged a bullet. He got rid of of the hot potato without too much financial pain. God only knows what kind of pain if he had to wait another year.
Well, prices HAVE fallen, and it’s never easy to know where the real bottom is for any asset class.
If a buyer understands that “RE always goes up” is not true and is taking a long-term buy and hold approach, it isn’t totally dumb to buy now even if the market isn’t at absolute bottom.
Bob, jumbo loans were easier to obtain than conforming loans. Think absolutely no verification versus at least a little.
The real problem with the high end is the massive oversupply. Way more supply than there are qualified buyers. Easy money is not returning, so neither are most jumbo markets.
I personally know a person who obtained a nearly $1,000,000 jumbo loan from WaMu to rehab/flip a SFH. Actually WaMu was the refi; national city was the first lender. Prior to flipping, this person earned maybe $30,000 as a sales person in a store mattress store. Of course the property hasn’t been completed and is in foreclosure. 2 loans, a million each time….thank god those days are over.
JPS, that depends. The Downtown rental market is in freefall (making it even cheaper to rent v. own,) foreclosures are increasing, sales are anemic, and supply is enormous, so today’s bottom will be lower tomorrow.
There is no risk in waiting since the downward spiral has not abated. I would wait for at least a small sign of improvement in any indicator before even considering the bottom is anywhere near.
G,
Your post brings up another point about rent and what people feel about it. Sure, all things considered, we can expect the bottom to fall more than where it is now, but how long that will take, nobody knows… For someone who is looking at rent vs. buy, there is a compelling argument that if they own, they will earn some equity once the bottom occurs and they can at least deduct the taxes and mortgage interest every year, vs. giving all of that money to someone else.
I’m a little naive on this subject, but can someone explain to me the rational behind allowing owners deduct interest and taxes, and not allowing renters to deduct their rent?
G, I don’t disagree that prices will continue to fall, but there are some people that do have strong reasons to buy now, i.e. new to the area or need more space — not everyone finds renting for two years then moving again to be a palatable option.
It’s a good thing SOME people perceive a need to buy now, or there would be no market at all. All I’m sayin’ is that not everyone who buys now is dumb, even if some of them are.
“can someone explain to me the rational behind allowing owners deduct interest and taxes, and not allowing renters to deduct their rent”
The guv’mint wants to encourage home ownership. Simple as that. It’s tax policy as social engineering.
“I’m a little naive on this subject, but can someone explain to me the rational behind allowing owners deduct interest and taxes, and not allowing renters to deduct their rent?”
It’s perceived to be a net benefit to society for people to own their dwellings instead of renting them. I.e. owners are more stable than renters, have more invested in their communities, tend to take better care of the property, etc. Hence the tax code (with big boost from the RE industry) favors ownership. It’s along the same lines that marriage has favored tax status over cohabitation.
You can dispute all these assumptions of course.
Thanks, that’s what I thought, but wanted to confirm.
/shrug, someone found an idiot sucker. Still not worth 330.
Also a little bit of tax history to put you to sleep (hope you have your coffee handy): used to be back in the day I believe ALL interest could be deducted (except for loanshark/bookie interest).
Over time congress needed more $ so eliminated the exemptions, but there were a lot of homeowners out there and they raised heck. Think of hitting a hornets nest with a bat. Congress backed down on that one, leaving that deductibility in place. They also backed down on student loan interest for a low income threshold, didn’t want to be seen as raising taxes on poor students.
More tax history… yawn.
“The first modern federal income tax was created in 1894. Interest — all forms of interest — was deductible; … When Congress made interest deductible, it was probably thinking of business interest. … Whether it was interest on a farm mortgage, or interest on a loan to purchase a tractor, or interest charged to a general store that purchased its inventory on credit, it all would have looked like a business expense. Credit cards did not exist. So Congress just said, “Deduct it.”…the growth of credit cards in the 70’s began to turn the interest deduction into a serious loophole. People were becoming plastic junkies; if you paid for a washing machine on credit, the I.R.S. would give you a subsidy. By the 1980’s, this threatened the entire system of revenue collection.”
From:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/magazine/305deduction.1.html?pagewanted=print
I still like this building — it will be interesting to see where future sales go from here. Before the market ground to a halt, similar units were going for $350-380k in this building. Whether “Still not worth $330k” is true or not — time will tell. These sellers HAD to sell — I believe it was two sisters, one of which was getting married and had bought another home. I guess they could have rented it if it hadn’t sold, but most people are not trying to be real estate tycoons — some just want to get on with their lives. That’s true of buyers too — this is a nice building and people tend to stay there awhile — that seems to be true of the entire SW section of River North — can’t compare to the mess in the South Loop.
There are always those who have to sell. There are far fewer who have to buy.
I find it hilarious that anyone believes an accidental landlord has any chance to become a “real estate tycoon.” They would have just lost more money with no end to the bleeding.
Unless you HAVE to buy now or else be priced our forever!
I would have looked at this building if the units had a better view. Looking directly at the mart isn’t exactly asthetically pleasing.
G and Homedelete, how is your relationship going? Are you two ready to take it to the next level yet?
I don’t think it is us straights you are insulting with that comment, bigot. It’s not the first time, either.
Straights? I’ve always assumed that you were a man and that HD was a girl. You seem to spend all day scratching each other’s backs, it’s cute.
Please don’t feed the trolls.
Funny thing about this troll is that he has revealed his identity here through numerous comments.
Interesting behavior when not really anonymous, don’t you think?