The Modern Vintage Rowhouse: 2150 W. Bowler in Tri-Taylor
This 4-bedroom renovated rowhouse at 2150 W. Bowler in the Tri-Taylor/UIC neighborhood has all the bells and whistles homebuyers look for.
Built in 1889, it recently was updated with a new limestone staircase.
The lower level has been finished with a family room, a bath and the fourth bedroom. The other three bedrooms are on the second floor.
The kitchen has modern white cabinets, granite counter tops and stainless steel appliances.
And if you’re looking for a low maintenance backyard, this property could be for you as it has bluestone pavers and a 2-car garage.
It’s built on a 21×125 lot.
Is this rowhouse a good townhouse alternative at this price?
Jennifer Ames at Coldwell Banker has the listing. See the pictures and the floorplan here.
2150 W. Bowler: 4 bedrooms, 3.5 baths, 2 car garage, no square footage listed
- Sold in September 2002 for $240,000
- Sold in December 2004 for $535,000
- Originally listed in April 2010 for $599,000
- Currently still listed for $599,000
- Taxes of $5520
- Central Air
- Bedroom #1: 10×17
- Bedroom #2: 10×15
- Bedroom #3: 10×9
- Bedroom #4: 16×16 (lower level)
- Family room: 20×25
That study is fantastic.
Love the study too! I think this would live more like a 3 bed, but looks like a quality place to my (untrained) eye.
I bet a Dr. scoops this up!
Awesome place, and even awesomererer listing, Jennifer Ames earns every penny of her listings.
Ok. My place looks like crap compared to this…
How much am I going to spend on an Interior Designer to sketch built-ins etc. and some furniture for me?
Recommendations?
“sketch built-ins”
Please note that all of those bookcases in the study and the lower level BR are from Ikea.
Floorplan but no square footage listed…’
small steps WL…small steps to perfection.
I generally love rowhouses IF they are all on the same page when it comes to the exterior maintenance.
Overall a very nice place. The only thing I don’t care for is the rear elevation when placed next to the neighbors. Great to have the nicest place on the block, but it does makes other owners lack of ‘pride of ownership’ even more obvious.
“I bet a Dr. scoops this up”
I doubt it – most docs that live in that neighborhood are residents and med students and could not afford it. Those older docs who CAN afford it wouldn’t want to live there!!!
Although the place is pretty nice, the neighborhood is TERRIBE:
– terribe schools
– dangerous at night
– far from safe public transportation
– NOT within walking distance to anything good
Why would ANYONE want to live here???
To live close to work? And its a lot cheaper than living in the gold coast?
Very nice, but seems overimproved for the neighborhood. Assuming the 2004 price included the reno I’m not seeing how it’s worth more than that today.
“To live close to work? And its a lot cheaper than living in the gold coast?”
I think most people would prefer to commute instead of being a prisoner in their own house after dark. The neighborhood is NOT fun!!!!
All you need in $100k a year in income to buy this place. In a perfect world, this should be ‘snapped’ up nearly instantly by some uber rich power couple with MD’s or MBA’s or quite possibly dual MD/MBA degrees! There’s a million of them out there. Remember, $100k a year households are neither unique nor rare. They’re everywhere.
However, in the real world, whosegonnapay$3,000amunth?
From the mortgage calculator on the right hand side of the listing screen:
Mortgage Calculator
Price $599,000
Down Payment 20% – $119,800
Interest Rate 5%
Term 30 years
Annual Taxes $5,520
Annual Insurance
ESTIMATED PAYMENT:
$3,032 per month
$119,800 down, $479,200 mortgage
very tastefully done interior!
“However, in the real world, whosegonnapay$3,000amunth?”
Is there anything even remotely similar for rent for $3k/mo?
“I think most people would prefer to commute instead of being a prisoner in their own house after dark. The neighborhood is NOT fun!!!!”
well most doctors I know are usually too exhausted after work or poor from their student loans to do anything, this might not be a bad thing 🙂
People pay $3,000 a month all the time. Just not for this property.
“People pay $3,000 a month all the time. Just not for this property.”
Someone already (almost) is. And has been for 6 years. *YOU* wouldn’t pay $3k/mo for it, even if you could afford $20k/mo, but that’s a different issue.
I wouldn’t live in this area, but people who have enough money to afford to live elsewhere do, so what do I know. Seems to be the implied land value is under $200k, so it is still probably too much for the location, even ignoring the possibility its the nicest house on the block.
Why hasn’t it sold after 90 days without a price cut?
“Why hasn’t it sold after 90 days without a price cut?”
Dude, as you point out almost *every*day*, nothing is selling.
Would you think it was reasonably priced at $400k?
Because at $400k, with 9% interest, it’s still $3k/month, which might well be the future cost for a future buyer.
We’re not looking at 9% interest for a long, long time.
In fact we’re looking at the lowest interest rates in mortgage history and the rates keep getting better.
Nothing is selling because of price.
In this environment, few people want to take on an obligation that costs $3,000 a month.
It may have been OK in 2004 to do that, or in 2002 like the previous buyer (who bought all cash) but it in today’s environment and for the foreseeable future, $3,000 is a lot of money.
My suggestion is $450k or $475k which is a good 20% or more off the current price.
It’s not like my estimates are unreasonable.
“Why hasn’t it sold after 90 days without a price cut?”
homes take a really really long time to sell, especially in 2010… that’s why
Homes take a long time to sell because they’re still too expensive.
REOs sell quickly because they’re priced right. Sure they’re crappy usually but they’re priced right.
Ask yourself this question:
Would this house sell for $350k? It sure would – and it would probably have multiple offers.
So then at what price between $350k and $600k would it take to get one qualified buyer?
And that my friend is the price at which this piece of real estate will sell.
“homes take a really really long time to sell, especially in 2010… that’s why”
“So then at what price between $350k and $600k would it take to get one qualified buyer?”
Bet it sells over $525k.
ps: “in today’s environment and for the foreseeable future, $3,000 is a lot of money”
So a household income of $36k a year is “a lot of money”?
Anon we r actually closer than you think bc I thinmk this is a high 4s
“Anon we r actually closer than you think bc I thinmk this is a high 4s”
That’s still $2500/month, and with the glass breakage you’d have to pay for, still $3k/month.
“So a household income of $36k a year is “a lot of money”?”
For Chicago indeed 3k on housing a month is indeed a lot of money. As housing expense is after tax (taking into account mortgage interest deduction) thats around 50k of pretax income. That’s likely a sizeable chunk of 99.5% of household budgets in Chicago and dare I say out of the reach of 97%+ of Chicago households.
There are so many better and other options for 3k/month in Chicago I doubt this place sells either.
Unless of course Ames finds an out of town transplant who doesn’t know this neighborhood from better ones and values proximity to work over anything else. Its possible as these star agents tend to specialize in professional transplants.
High 4s with a down payment puts this solidly in the lows 2000s
“That’s likely a sizeable chunk of 99.5% of household budgets in Chicago and dare I say out of the reach of 97%+ of Chicago households.”
Lincoln Park (60614) has a median household income of over $160,000 inflation adjusted from 1999.
More than 4% of Chicago households are in the zip alone, so I think the 97% estimate is a little off.
I suspect none of the properties discussed on this site are even a consideration for about 2/3 of Chicago households, in any event.
So basically, HD is griping (as per usual) about not being wealthy enough. Sort of like the 85% percentile score on your SAT. Not getting you into Northwestern, so college must just be impossible to get into right? Seems to be a little bit of selection bias here…
Years ago this was a very scary area. Belonged to a fraternity in this area and it was a drive to area area due to the crime. The neighborhood looks better, but I still would not want to live there, as the fires left a lasting impression.
Nah JMM just having a good laugh about the price of this row house.
““Why hasn’t it sold after 90 days without a price cut?”
homes take a really really long time to sell, especially in 2010… that’s why”
I have to disagree with you Sonies and agree with HD on this one. I get e-mails from readers who are engaged in bidding wars for foreclosures on the north side right now (yes- BIDDING WARS)- and those properties are selling within minutes/hours/a day of being listed (if they’re in halfway decent shape.)
Yes- they’re selling at 50% off 2005 prices. But that’s why they’re selling that quickly. They’ve reverted back to 1999 or even earlier prices.
Price it right- it will sell within days. If it’s on the market for a year, and it’s not a luxury property,- then the price is wrong.
Of course- most homeowners can’t compete with the prices of the short sales and foreclosures. That’s why prices will continue to be pressured because those are the properties buyers are buying. Everyone else is waiting for buyers to pay more- but they won’t.
Eventually, you’ll see more and more sellers throwing in the towel (short sale etc.) just to get out of the property because they can’t compete on price.
And that’s why it will take years, in my opinion, for prices to finally bottom.
Anyone else find it odd they have two interior HVAC units– an extra one on the upper level, on top of the one in the basement?
I assume it’s a remnant from conversion to SF but that irks to me to give up space (and noise) to HVAC on the upper level.
Well said, Sabrina.
“…..most homeowners can’t compete with the prices of the short sales and foreclosures. That’s why prices will continue to be pressured because those are the properties buyers are buying”
I have to partially disagree with the above statement. While it is true that INVESTORS are buying short sales/foreclosures, NON-INVESTOR buyers (buyers who are buying place for themselves to live) are very carefully looking for houses/properties and neighborhoods that they actually want to live in. They are actually willing to pay more (at least where I live) because they realize that they may have to stay in the house for “awhile”. (Previously, people were buying anything that was a good deal because people figured they could live there for a few years and flip it and move somewhere where they would rather live. Now, they realize that whatever house they buy, they may have to stay there for awhile, so they are being much more choosy).
If I were a Doc and had $2-3k to spend a month on rent / mortgage, I definitely would live in the West Loop, River North, or Gold Coast. I’d just commute by taxi or motor scooter.
If I spent a shift working at Stroger/VA/UIC/Rush, after work I’d want to get the hell away from there. I would not want to look out my window and see sick people.
“Lincoln Park (60614) has a median household income of over $160,000 inflation adjusted from 1999.”
Wow thats crazy. From the site I am viewing its actually 85k, which is less than half of that (and below mine).
http://www.realestate.com/IL/Chicago/local-info.aspx
Perhaps some selection bias in your data? In any event even if the median income were 160k in 60614 (I doubt that it is), I don’t think that zipcode’s median area is comparable to this location.
I believe the 160k median household income stat you posted is a myth and I’d like to see a credible source cite it. Sounds a lot like a stat salespeople put in those pamphlets for trying to sell commercial properties around LP use.
And you, too, JMM can buy the Hoagie Hut for under 200k if you really believe the streets of LP are lined with gold. My experience given the deals there is quite the contrary.
Err..okay my math is off I meant a little more than half of that in terms of 85k vs. 160k.
Its a Steve Heitman myth extraordinaire that the streets are paved in gold in LP and the median household income is 160k and everyone is loaded. Maybe the gold coast. Remember there are a lot of households in LP that earn little to no money (students and service industry). One of the reasons I commute down to LP to hang out is because its super cheap compared to a lot of other neighborhoods. Definitely doesn’t scream median 160k household income at all–quite the opposite.
This area is not good at all. Nothing to do there. If this place doesn’t have bullet-proof windows, get them installed. This place is overpriced and that is why it hasn’t sold. The classic look only appeals if it has been maintained by the neighboring houses as well, which in this case it hasn’t. If smoke coming up from your gutters is your thing, then go for it. This area will not take off, and most likely never will in our lifetime. If you want to live among UIC students who are trying to save a buck or two living here, go for it. A smart Dr. Will buy wherever he wants, that’s why he or she became a Dr. in the first place. Real Estate Agents will tell sellers anything they want to here. This place to me in this neighborhood only sells for 400 max. 600K is a stretch and dont show me some listing where some place is listed at so and so. Real Estate Agents will tickle and kiss your asses and say what you want to here just to get your listing(600K….outrageous). In my book, they are far worse than car salesman!!! Who cares who can afford this place, no body can afford to get hosed when time comes to sell this place and the price has indeed gone down. Tell me what is so desirable the area. LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION…
The neighborhood is indeed sketchy at night. Once in a while, you can count on a robbery pattern happening here when someone from further west realizes how close the haves are, there’s still a decent amount of Satan Disciples in the area, and there’s what looks like about a dozen scattered site CHA units on Claremont between Polk and Flournoy.
The home itself looks nice, but $600k can probably buy me something nice that’s not a few blocks from CHA residents.
“Lincoln Park (60614) has a median household income of over $160,000 inflation adjusted from 1999.”
The important number that you should be looking at is the median household income of BUYERS/OWNERS of real estate. Rembmer, there are a huge number of people w/incomes of less than 40k who will NEVER be able to buy a place – these people skew the data quite a bit.
I was hoping that this year’s census would have been structured like 2000’s, with many interrogation points including income. Those stats could have helped us all level set where the city’s at.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=60614&_cityTown=60614&_state=04000US17&_zip=60614&_lang=en&_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&show_2003_tab=&redirect=Y
See the part where it says:
“Median family income in 1999 (dollars)”
Which is 131,700 as of 1999. Families becaue that is the buyer of a house.
Adjust for inflation. I am not going to post the CPI, there are plenty of inflation calculators.
Need any more help?
“I was hoping that this year’s census would have been structured like 2000’s, with many interrogation points including income. Those stats could have helped us all level set where the city’s at.”
It is, it’s just done by sampling again. So not everyone gets the long form, but a “representative” sample does and it’s extrapolated. Big political issue every time it happens. There will be the same sort of data available next year. What to make of it depends on your trust for statistical methods in general and the specific sampling methods used.
Household Income != Family Income
““Median family income in 1999 (dollars)”
Which is 131,700 as of 1999. Families becaue that is the buyer of a house.”
JMM–I bring this up regularly in the median income discussions–the median income of Chicago residents is *not* very useful when thinking about Chicago real estate, because the median Chicago resident is a renter. And likely always will be. So, if you want to talk about the median Chicagoan, it’s a discussion of how much rent they can afford, not how big a mortgage.
Everyone got the same form. Additional data was done by interview (phone or F2F) with a sample of population.
“I was hoping that this year’s census would have been structured like 2000’s, with many interrogation points including income. Those stats could have helped us all level set where the city’s at.”
It’s a myth that the median Chicago resident is a renter and it’s a myth that renters earn less money than buyers. There may be more rentals than units for purchase but in the end it all comes down to the price of housing – regardless if you rent or a buyer. Everyone has to live somewhere and the housing stock ain’t going anywhere. It comes down to the cost of housing – and you can choose to buy or rent. There’s no reason why only wealthy people should choose to own. There are vast stretches of the city, and decent areas too, where people own and the median income is about same as Chicago’s median.
“JMM–I bring this up regularly in the median income discussions–the median income of Chicago residents is *not* very useful when thinking about Chicago real estate, because the median Chicago resident is a renter. And likely always will be. So, if you want to talk about the median Chicagoan, it’s a discussion of how much rent they can afford, not how big a mortgage.”
“It’s a myth that the median Chicago resident is a renter ”
What percentage of Chicagoan’s own a home? Is it less than or greater than 50%? Everything I’ve seen has the number below 50%. Thus, the median Chicagoan is a renter. If you disagree, find something to support that.
And, yes, of course I’m talking about *only* city residents.
“What percentage of Chicagoan’s own a home? Is it less than or greater than 50%? Everything I’ve seen has the number below 50%. Thus, the median Chicagoan is a renter. If you disagree, find something to support that”
I don’t know where you could find this information (or if it is available anywhere). I would be willing to bet a million dollars that more than half of Chicago residents rent. Just look at the numbers. If the median (not average) income of Chicagoans is less than 40k, there is no way that these people could afford to buy a house/condo.
“I don’t know where you could find this information (or if it is available anywhere).”
Census data. Quick check (ie, there may be something else, and/or something more recent) finds that, as of 2005, there were 1,020,605 households in Chicago and 494,985 owner-occupied units. For 2005, the *metro* HO rate was (by quarter) 69.9, 69.3, 71.0, and 69.8 (higher only in ’06). For Q1-10, it was 67.4.
So, it is unreasonable to assume w/o other data that there are a higher percentage of homeowner in Chicago now than there were in 05, when 48.5% of Chicago HHs were owners. The MEDIAN Chicagoan *is* a renter.
Thanks Anon for the info
I actually think the home ownership rate is much lower. Remember, census data relies on people completing forms, agreeing to interviews, etc. It is known that home owners are more likely to fill out these forms (many renters have the mindset not to participate – as they think they may only be here for a little bit).
The data is very much flawed – but a good starting point
Try looking in areas outside of the ‘green zone’. It encompasses a significant portion of the city.
“If the median (not average) income of Chicagoans is less than 40k, there is no way that these people could afford to buy a house/condo.”
Yes, that is why I look at median family income in 60614 as a proxy for the potential buyer of many of the properties discussed here (at least the 3brs and up).
Since the median is a renter, I agree city wide statistics aren’t really useful. Home owners as a population are different than home renters on the income scale.
Plus home buyers probably have even higher incomes than total home owners. Reason is retirees who own their houses, which is a big chunk of homeowners.