Update on 3150 N. Sheffield: 9 Months Later Two Sold, Two Still Listed
We last chattered about The Vic Lofts at 3150 N. Sheffield in Lakeview in May 2008.
At that time, we discussed 4 different units. Since then, 2 of the 4 have sold for under their prior 2006 sales prices.
2 others are still on the market, with both significantly reduced by $30,000 and $35,000, respectively.
See our chatter and the pictures here.
One poster, Happy in Loft, who allegedly lives in the building, said back in May:
“I think the loft units were priced very reasonably by the developer. I watched the building sell out quickly. I wasn’t in a position to buy when I first found it, and I consider myself lucky to have ended up able to buy the last unit with the floor plan I wanted. I don’t plan on selling any time within the next few years, so I could really care less what it’s worth right now.”
These two units sold.
Unit #610: 1 bedroom, 1 bath
- Sold in November 2005 for $265,500
- Was listed in May 2008 for $269,000
- Sold in September 2008 for $260,000
- Assessments of $282 a month
- Rental parking next door only- for $195 a month
Unit #411: 1 bedroom, 1 bath
- Sold in February 2006 for $213,000
- Was listed in May 2008 for $219,900
- Sold in July 2008 for $208,500
- Assessments of $255 a month
- Rental parking next door
Unit #409 had furniture in the pictures back in May but the pictures now show the unit empty. It has been reduced by $30,000.
Unit #409: 2 bedroom, 2 bath, 720 square feet (yes that square footage is correct)
- Sold in February 2006 for $238,500
- Was listed in May 2008 for $299,000
- Reduced
- Currently listed for $269,000
- Assessments of $281 a month
- Taxes are “new”
- Rental parking next door
- Bedroom #1: 13 x 8
- Bedroom #2: 10 x 8
- Urban Real Estate has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #301, a duplex unit, has reduced $35,000. The listing now says “Dramatic $50k reduction! Will not last at this price!”
Unit #301: 1 bedroom, 1.5 baths, duplex, 15 foot ceilings
- Sold in March 2006 for $265,000
- Was listed in May 2008 for $274,900
- Reduced several times
- Currently listed for $239,900
- Assessments of $320 a month
- Taxes are $3200
- Rental parking next door
- Jennifer Vogel at Century 21 Sussex & Reilly has the listing. See the pictures here.
I cannot believe anybody bought 610. It was like a studio. SUPER small.
The pictures make it look was bigger than it is.
I like the lack of BR photos on 409. Are they so small that the realtor couldn’t fit herself AND a camera in them?
300k for a 720 sq ft 2BD/2 BA?! $416/sq ft in lakeview with no guaranteed parking? This is not paris or london. I could almost understand that price if we were talking about a top notch unit overlooking the lake. The kitchen looks like the fake kitchens one would find in a college campus apartment. The 10×8 bedroom should be listed as a den because no real bedroom furniture will fit into that. These units look like the developer ran out of money and used 1 set of kitchen cabinets for multiple condos. Sorry, there are much better deals in lakeview. I would be to embarassed to tell people I paid 300k for that.
And 301 has no pictures of the kitchen. Maybe if you could put the two of them together, you could have one decent place.
very urban…apt and location kind of reminds me of Elwood Blues’s place.
Wow what a strange development
I looked at these when they were first offered…
Cons:
-El Noise
-Laundry not in unit
-No parking
-Tiny
The only one I was interested in I was told was sold to the developer’s sister (NE corner on top, had view of lake).
But Lauren its right across the street from a 4am bar and a liquor store and right on one of the busier intersections of the northside.
What more could you want? ;D
720sqft for a 2/2 just makes me LOL. Thats a good one. Hey you could always buy the place if you lived nearby and wanted more closet space I suppose.
A one bedroom duplex?!? That’s weird.
Hmmm. My last post disappeared. As I was saying…
I looked at the 3 bedrooms back in July and thought they were a better value than some other condos I was seeing (e.g. 2921 N. Lincoln). At least the 3 bedrooms had parking available for only $10K. The model had nice finishes.
I don’t think the building has sold out by any means. The developer has a ton of units still on the market: http://viccondos.com
And the prices have not come down much, if any. Several units were pulled from the MLS. I guess the developer likes paying that interest.
720 ft. 2 Bedroom, or is it you can fit 2 beds in the condo?
Perhaps it’s a 2 (Murphy) Bed.
Also, who buys anything (not just housing) over $1000 and says they “don’t care what it’s worth in the future?”
That is unless you are terminally ill.
Maybe you can fit a bunk bed in the 13×8 room 🙂
I’d be interested in a unit here if I could get it cheaply enough to gut out the developer’s horrid build-outs and redo the place as a traditional apartment.
Dear Mother of God, how I am sick of exposed concrete and open ductwork and exposed brick and other “brutalist” (un)decorative elements.
I foresee a wave of frantic reaction to the brutalist-modernist aesthetic coming very soon, as we all get poorer. Living like this is only fun when you aren’t stuck with it. In the meantime, if you really like the Brutalist look, there are still some CHA highrises standing, just lie about your income on the rental app and save LOTS of money over buying a place like that.
While I’m not a big fan of the exposed ducts I think concrete, open brick (on an interior wall) are still interesting design elements.
I’m with Laura. The last place I lived (and owned) had two rooms with exposed brick, and I came to think of it as an annoying affectation, especially since it was completely out of keeping with the building, a sprawly 1880s Victorian. It made me a little queasy to think that the developer had stripped off perfectly good plaster (with horsehair!) and lath to uncover cold, crumbly brick. Maybe I can see it in a loft (a real one) but anything else is pretentious and kind of dumb.
I’ve seen the duplex unit #301. The upstairs bedroom is very nice. However, the spiral staircase is a joke. You seriously would have a hard time carrying a glass of water up it. Impassable to the obese or elderly. It’s hilarious.
The first floor living room area is a disaster of wasted space. The area behind the staircase is purely decorative, there’s a 1x3ft space btwn the windows and the HVAC closet.
The layout of the first floor should be shown to students of architecture/design, what not to do. Or maybe used to torment wayward design souls.
I actually like exposed brick but the ceilings in this building are so ugly. It’s a very rough cement that would look industrial and harsh in a bomb shelter.
That said I saw #411 and was outbid. It’s layout was much more normal and its interior views protected from the street and el noise. I’m still looking and often wish I had gotten it.
In unit W/D is not allowed, but hookups exist in #301.
thx_bi-owner, in response to: “Also, who buys anything (not just housing) over $1000 and says they ‘don’t care what it’s worth in the future?'” Maybe my comment requires additional explanation.
1. You’ll notice I actually said, “I don’t plan on selling any time within the next few years, so I could really care less what it’s worth *right now*.” In a down market, of course prices are going to slow and go down. But if you’re not selling any time soon, why would you worry? It’s like IRAs and 401ks — if you’re 30-something, you don’t need to be that worried over the dips in your retirement account, since you won’t be cashing out for 30 years. Long-term investments are much safer than short-term investments, and if you stay in your home for an extended period, you’re most likely to come out ahead regardless of these bumps along the way. I also plan on staying in my neighborhood if I ever do sell, so regardless of how the market affects my home value, I would be buying back into that same market, which would mostly negate any loss or gain. I.E. If you sell your place for a 30% profit, it wouldn’t matter so much if every other place you want to buy also went up 30%. You don’t get to spend that money. You get to live in a home. Big difference.
And 2. Have you never bought a piece of artwork or a car or a nice piece of furniture — or anything else that you purchase primarily because you would like to *use and enjoy* it? Why would you treat your home — which has more of an impact on your quality of life than probably anything else you purchase (unless you’re terminally ill and need to buy medicine) — primarily as an investment rather than a place to live? Of course one would be wise to choose a home that will afford them a high quality of life for years to come. But your home and your quality of life are not the same thing as cash. My home is first and foremost a place I want to live in, and secondly, a piece of security, as I know that even if the market falls, this investment is also a place to live, unlike stocks, which have no intrinsic value to pay your rent if the market falls.
I have something of an ethical issue with speculating on homes. I would only buy into a neighborhood and a home where I’d want to live now and where I wouldn’t mind staying put for an indefinite amount of time. I consider my home more of an investment in the neighborhood. In fact, when I bought my place, I wasn’t actually looking to buy. I just happened to stumble upon a perfect fit *for me* — what I wanted, where I wanted:
— right by the El (three train lines in fact) and in a strong commercial area (this is surprisingly hard to find, considering how many train stops aren’t in neighborhood centers and vice versa)
— not too far from downtown and close to the lake
— lots of windows and a totally open, minimalist space (I was able to change my floorplan to fit what I wanted before build-out)
— a solid historic building (this is on the National Register and is a Chicago Landmark)
— great view of an everyday vibrant pedestrian street (feels very Jane Jacobs)
— no parking (i don’t drive, don’t like cars, don’t want it included in the price, and don’t want to be a part of the market for it)
Laura and MitchellD re: exposed ducts and ceilings — To each their own. But when retrofitting an old building, often the original plaster is too rotten to keep, particularly with a building like this that endured a couple decades of neglect and vacancy. And this building was also not designed for central air — so you would need to do a drop ceiling if you wanted to conceal the ducts, which to me seems disingenuous and suburban, and I don’t like the idea of all that vacuous space between the fake ceiling and the real ceiling. Better to reduce construction materials, have higher ceilings, and be able to see the raw structure.
What is a “real” loft? This building was designed for a bank, a couple floors of offices, and an SRO hotel on top. There is no “in keeping with the building” without new bank and office tenants and replacing the hotel, which is no longer what the market in the neighborhood can support. All lofts are “affectations” because they are not genuine to their original use. You can’t compare it to an 1890s Victorian home still being used as a home. I think what’s appealing to people about lofts of any variety is the relationship to former building uses, be that industrial, church, bank, offices, etc. — living in a space with a more complex history that’s recognized in the home. Converting a historic bank/office/hotel building into typical suburban-style condos would be a shame and would cover up the building’s history. The concrete ceilings to me are a nod to an era when building construction was more substantive and timeless and banks were designed like fortresses.
I’d agree with you if you said it would have been nice if the building still had radiator heat instead of central air, but those must have been removed during previous construction in the 80s. And tragically, original marble wainscoting in the halls I read about in a National Register report must have also been removed in the 80s. Unfortunately, the materials they used back then (like italian marble and bronze) would be far too expensive to use these days, in new construction or in rehab. Luckily, some of those elements are preserved throughout the building. I’d really love to see the second story interior skylight restored though to bring the light court back into use.
It goes without saying, almost, that these places are NOT worth 40% more than they were in 2006.
The Case-Schiller indicates that prices across the country will have to drop on average of 30% from the peak in 2006 to restore the traditional relationship between rents & incomes; and prices.
Here is a great article on RGE Monitor with very interesting charts:
http://www.rgemonitor.com/globalmacro-monitor/253320/putting_a_floor_under_american_homes_how_low_do_we_go
It appears that Chicago, which peaked at a Price:Rent ratio of 24.4 to 1, became steeply overpriced, much more than NYC, though not as bubbly as the zany precincts of coastal CA or Miami.
But we still have a long way to drop. Figuring a 30% drop from the 2006 price of $265K for unit 301, for example, you can figure it ought to go for $185K.
However, the 30% drop from peak to revert to historical norms does not factor in other conditions, such as the deterioration of consumer credit and drop in incomes, plus high unemployment, we are seeing now.
So, we could go into severe overshoot on the downside. You can still feel good about buying if you see a place you really love, and it’s not priced too far above rent parity. But this is not the time to spring just because something is a better deal than it was 3 years ago.
Laura — Yes, it’s ridiculous to price for a 40% gain in less than three years, particularly in this market. But it’s probably even more ridiculous to lump Lakeview with the Chicago MSA as a whole. Case-Schiller has also shown inner neighborhoods faring much better than outer neighborhoods.
http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/index/052708_Housing_bubbles_collapse.pdf
Exurban neighborhoods in the region are suffering much more severe drops, while established urban neighborhoods like Lakeview have generally held their value much stronger. Older neighborhoods like this have more to offer and have more intrinsic value than outer suburban neighborhoods with values based on amenities that haven’t been built yet. And with the current trend of people moving back into the city from the suburbs, I’d say it’s even more off-base to lump the city with the suburbs and exurbs. Here’s a great article about what we can expect: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime/3
Happy In Loft, I agree with you in general. Lakeview WILL hold its valu:Rent ratio still applies. Lakeview of course has higher rents than, say, Uptown or Edgewater or Rogers Park, wich saw absolutely surreal Price/Rent ratios. A place that rents for $900 in RP easily fetches $1400 in Lakeview, and the diff shows in the housing prices.
But the ratio still holds: no market, except for perhaps San Francisco, will hold a PTR ratio of more than 10:1. And even San Fran can’t support 27:1, or 24:1.
I can’t help but notice that I’m seeing way more real BARGAINS for sale in Lakeview, really, then in Edgewater and Rogers Park, where sellers are still clinging to Bubble prices in spite of entire buildings of rehabbed condos being in foreclosure up here in RP.
Take a look at some of the deals to be had in Lakeview and Lincoln Park. I recently saw and tracked a huge, lovely 3 bed 2 bath in the magnificent Barry at BArry and Sheridan (3100 N Sheridan) for $299K, a bargain, and it sold quickly.
Right now, there is a beautiful 5-room 2 bed 1 bath vintage languishing at $250K at the same beautiful courtyard in the 2700 block of Hampden Court in the same great courtyard that Sabrina featured here just a couple of months ago. Look at the MLS site under 60614.
So prices will go back to the traditional rent:price ratios no matter what.
AS for the exurbs, they have had it. For the past twenty years, the city has been gaining in value while the exurbs have been losing. The only reason those places exist is because they offer new spacious houses at really cheap prices, but with lots of hidden costs, such as 50-mile commutes. Every hike in fuel prices renders them still less viable, and my bet is that within the next 15 years we are going to see a large number of now-empty McMansion subdivisions bulldozed under and converted back to farmland, as these places should always have been. Shame to waste some of the richest farmland in the U.S. on junk houses 50 miles from anything.
The exurbs exist b/c housing everywhere else is too expensive. Where else are you going to live if you to live in a low crime area with your spouse and 3 kids but the primary wage earner earns only an average wage? The exurbs aren’t going anywhere but will experience a slow down in growth. White people move to McHenry county b/c they don’t want to live in hispanic neighborhoods in the city and inner-ring suburbs, and, the regular suburbs are a bit too pricey for the average person. If your household income is $60k a year…it will be difficult to find housing in the northwest suburbs…but Johnsburg, Crystal lake, etc? that area is still somewhat affordable.
Laura – i think it’s useful to look at price to rent ratios but using this metric alone doesn’t take into account today’s extremely low interest rates. Even jumbo loans have come down in recent weeks toward 6%. Price-to-rent ratio is just a simplified version of a cap rate and cap rates are definitely interest rate-sensitive.
Also, the unit i assume you are referring to at the Barry (3100 Sheridan, #7D) has not sold per MLS. Although the price of $299K is cheap for the square footage – the unit itself was a DUMP, and the assessments alone (not including taxes) were almost $1200 per month, which does NOT include parking, which is not even available in the Barry cmplex. While u may interpret this as a sign that prices are getting cheaper, i think it also reflects that weaker properties are going to decline much more than stronger properties.
Factors that make for a “weak” property: high assessments, lack of parking (or other amenities) or most prominently location, be it Rogers Park, McHenry County or even certain blocks in Lakeview. I also think of any new construction development (built 2002 or later) as a weak property, due to the high rate of odd financing and the short-term outlook of the people who bought there (flippers or not). Certain neighbborhoods, property types and buildings are gonna take it on the chin in this whole thing.
My point is that i think the Case Shiller paints with a broad brush. When it comes down to individual properties, i think you have to look at each property on a case-by-case basis.
bubbleboi, you are correct in many respects. An exceptionally fine property will command a higher price per sq ft than the neighborhood norm, and a place that needs lots of work (which the Barry place definitely does) will get less than the average.
Still, the place at the Barry would not have lasted 2 days anywhere near this price at the top of the mania. The place does not need that much work- paint, floor refinishing, a new kitchen. It is an intrinsically beautiful unit in a prime location. People who buy vintage units are pretty desensitized to high maintenance, though even I will admit that $1200 is a bit excessive.
Hey, while I admit the prices are VERY overpriced for buying a 1BR/1BA or 2BR/2BA, I would like to try to rent one in this building. I move back to Chicago in August. Any suggestions? g_sgl@yahoo.com