This Duplex Loft Sold At About the 1999 Price: 3024 N. Lincoln in Lakeview
We last chattered about this big 2-bedroom loft at 3024 N. Lincoln in Lakeview in September 2010.
See our prior chatter here.
It recently sold for just $5,000 over the 1999 purchase price.
That was $125,000 under the 2005 purchase price.
The loft had a lot of authentic loft features including few walls, 17 to 30 foot high ceilings, exposed brick and the original 1-inch maple wood floors.
This unit also had a private 400 square foot roof top terrace and deeded attached parking.
Did someone get a deal?
Alishja Ballard at @Properties had the listing.
Unit #F: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1781 square feet, duplex
- Sold in April 1997 for $255,000
- Sold in May 1999 for $350,000
- Sold in August 2003 for $450,000
- Sold in July 2005 for $480,000
- Was listed in September 2010 for $399,900
- Sold in February 2011 for $355,000
- Assessments of $330 a month
- Taxes of $6715
- Central Air
- Washer/Dryer in the unit
- Bedroom #1: 20×17
- Bedroom #2: 14×12
- Rooftop deck: 20×20
Makes me wonder how much units D and E will eventually go for. They are by and far superior units, but will that keep them above 400K?
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/3024-N-Lincoln-Ave-60657/unit-E/home/13366614
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/3024-N-Lincoln-Ave-60657/unit-D/home/13366615
D & E are both also currently listed for $459k. Appear to be about the same size, but with somewhat updated kitchen and baths.
G, which is supposedly ~400 sf larger and a 2+ den, also with updated kitchen/baths, sold for $535k in October.
Deal or no, the sale makes life much harder for D & E.
there was a big fire next door back in december.
http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/12/extra-alarm-fire-rips-though-lakeview-carpet-store.html
All of these units look dated. Considering it’s on the second floor of a busy street, it’s a harder sell. I think these other 2 probably go for just under $400.
I don’t know how, in this market, anyone can really judge if he or she got a deal, especially on a condo. How much shadow inventory is out there now? No one really knows. If there’s enough, then this year’s “steal” will be next year’s overpayment. I’ve read some views that the overall RE market in the US is going to be better in 2011. Perhaps, but it seems to me that there’s still a glut of condos on the market in Chicago. And we don’t know how many more are coming to market this year.
Everyone’s excited about the drop in unemployment, but with the labor participation rate at generational lows, it seems that there will be less people able to buy at higher prices.
I think much better statistics than the unemployment rate are the number of jobs out there & aggregate wages.
Looks like there are still 5.5% less jobs than there were 3 years ago. Lets not forget the bubble had already begun to pop in earnest 4-5 years ago.
http://cr4re.com/charts/chart-images/JobLossesAlignedFeb2011.jpg
Another good stat would be aggregate wages. I don’t have the source at the ready but I’d bet they’re lower.
Scary chart, Bob!
Yeah, the U-6 unemployment rate is still jut under 16%. Scary number.
Even scarier is the upcoming changes to Chicago in the next 20 years. Will the city go bankrupt to pay for its pension obligations, or will property taxes rise to absurd levels? This subject property could be a long-run loser.
“Will the city go bankrupt to pay for its pension obligations, or will property taxes rise to absurd levels?”
Uh, neither. Rahm’s answer to that false dichotomy (which he set up to be able to take advantage of it) is that neither of the extremes is acceptable. Which of course neither is.
Who will pay when there’s a day of reckoning then, or will we just inflate ourselves out of this mess? That’s what happened in the 1970’s and early 1980’s.
“Who will pay when there’s a day of reckoning then, or will we just inflate ourselves out of this mess?”
What does “inflate our way out of this mess” have to do with Chicago city pension obligations? Which one do you want to talk about, but I have thoughts on both, but I was *only* addressing the false choice between “going bankrupt to pay pensions” and “raise property taxes ~20%”. The real answer to that is a blended approach which raises taxes some and reduces pensions some, which *will* happen.
A combination of both would work well. However, pensions should be capped at 75,000 in wages for all goverrnment workers. This would fix a lot of the problem. High earners in government shouldn’t be exploiting taxpayers as much as they do. Inflation would be great for a lot of parties involved, but at this point, what will drive that? Oil prices can only do so much.
“What does “inflate our way out of this mess” have to do with Chicago city pension obligations?”
Inflation can lead to asset inflation (i.e. higher stock market). If the pension portfolios double, they will no longer be underfunded. Forget for a minute the millions of other problems this causes….
DM: “A combination of both would work well. However, pensions should be capped at 75,000 in wages for all goverrnment workers. This would fix a lot of the problem. High earners in government shouldn’t be exploiting taxpayers as much as they do. ”
I agree. It’s my current favorite policy proposal–and it *MUST* be an aggregate from all public-funded pensions in the state, including any city, county or district within Ilinois. Not necessarily certain about the cap (whether it should be $75k or $95k or $65k), think it needs to be indexed to some measure of inflation, etc.
It has a couple of really beneficial effects, for both sides (the public and the pension-drawers): It eliminates the end of career OT grabbing, it eliminates end of career promotions (also, should require 3 years in a position to earn the pension for that position), and it eliminates the public outcry about retirees getting “rich” on the public’s dime. The elimination of OT-based benefits and title-grabbing should reduce non-pension costs to the public, while still providing equivalent (really, likely better) services and the whole thing *should* improve public support for the continuation of public-employee pension.
chuk: “Inflation can lead to asset inflation (i.e. higher stock market). If the pension portfolios double, they will no longer be underfunded.”
Benefits-payable also rise with inflation, so you’d have to do a hard analysis of the likely *relative* effect of inflation on assets:liabilities.
The thing is, the political machine and related unions of Illinois will not let these cuts happen, unless there is a bigger issue involved (potential bankruptcy of the City or State). It is rare for private sector pensions to not have a cap, as the higher paid workers are usually able to save more and there is less of a need for the pension. And due to 401k rules, higher paid workers are often not given a 401k match too.
“The thing is, the political machine and related unions of Illinois will not let these cuts happen, unless there is a bigger issue involved (potential bankruptcy of the City or State). ”
First, the state cannot declare bankruptcy.
Second, any union leaders who don’t think that there is a bigger issue involved are being stupid.
Third, the bigger issue, even on the Chicago level, need not be pre-bankruptcy planning to get the unions to face reality. It’s a clear enough problem that even Chico–after courting the unions and saying “no cuts, no way, we promised” came around to “we need to change things and everyone knows that” just before the election (note–this may not be an accurate portrayal of his full policy, but based on what I read–which was quite a lot–it is distinctly the impression Chico gave me).
No matter what, the unions can’t go in to the negotiations saying “we know we need to cut pensions” because that’s just not how you negotiate a give back–the negotiators would get replaced instantly if they said publicly anything like that. But this will happen and things will get largely sorted out, at least at the city level. Property taxes will go up a bit, and city $$ will get reallocated a lot, but there just won’t be the predicted tax increase unless things get a lot worse, in which case we’ll have bigger things to worry about.
The really reprehensible thing is the size of the pensions for elected officials, especially the legislature, with their part-time jobs.
Unit D sold for $425K.