Waiting for a Buyer in Peterson Woods: 5839 N. Whipple
This cute 1936 Georgian at 5839 N. Whipple near the Peterson Woods neighborhood on the far north side has been on the market since June 2008.
It’s been reduced $60,000.
Here’s the listing:
FANTASTIC VALUE! CLASSIC CUSTOM BUILT COUNTRY FRENCH GEORGIAN OFFERS PERFECT BLEND OF YESTERDAY & TODAY. GRACIOUS STEP DOWN LIVING ROOM, WDBFP, STRIKING FLOOR TO CEILING LEADED PALLADIAN WINDOWS.
LARGE FORMAL DINING ROOM W/BUILT IN CORNER HUTCHES. SPACIOUS KITCHEN-LOTS OF CABINETS, 1ST FLOOR FAMILY RM LEADS TO HUGE DECK. MASTER BDRM W/BTH. LOWER LEVEL REC ROOM. A MUST SEE!
Terry Silis at Baird and Warner has the listing. See more pictures here (if you put the address into the B&W website you can also see pictures of the back deck and garage.)
5839 N. Whipple: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 2 half-baths, 2000 square feet, 2.5 car garage
- Sold in July 1992 for $182,000
- Originally listed in June 2008 for $559,900
- Reduced
- Currently listed at $499,900
- Taxes are $5,233
- Central air
- Basement
I love this house, and think the price just might be right. This is a very fine, safe, family-oriented neighborhood- it being dull and unhip, as well as inconvenient to rapid transit, is perhaps the price you pay for such good houses at reasonable prices. Nabe feels like a gracious old inner suburb, with many beautiful homes and mature trees. Convenient to Edgewater, good place for kids.
Beautiful, beautiful house at a reasonable price.
Great looking house. But at $499,000 it is still priced a bit high.
5%/year since 92 (16 yrs) makes it $397k. So even this, that Laura thinks is “reasonable” and HD merely “a bit high”, is overpriced by $100k.
tfo-
while i think it’s overpriced, your calculation is way too simplistic to find the legit price. It is, however, a good tool to start the research.
anon the f’in original – I’m glad to see you are on the side of the bears on this one!!! But in all seriousness, you’re right, this place is overpriced. The north and northwest sides experienced bubble like appreciation maybe even moreso than the rest of the city. The appreciation didn’t come as much through rampant flipping (although that did happen) but instead through serial refinancings and HELOCS. This particular owner has a $330,000 mortgage from April 2006. Contrast that with an original purchase price of $182k in 1992. I’m not going to pay for their serial refinancings and no one else wants to either.
“anon (tfo) on November 10th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
5%/year since 92 (16 yrs) makes it $397k. So even this, that Laura thinks is “reasonable” and HD merely “a bit high”, is overpriced by $100k.”
dude, if you follow HD’s and Laura’s (general) positions on appreciation, 5%/year since 92 is too high.
I like using the 5%/year anytime there is a sale price from the 90s–it tends to provide a decent balancing number for the different levels of the bear-ish around here. Of course it’s too simplistic, but it’s better than “i think it’s overpriced” and better than much “expert” analysis.
“This particular owner has a $330,000 mortgage from April 2006”
$330k is a pretty good 80% price. If I were in the market for something like this, I would consider assuming their mortgage. $412,500 wouldn’t be bad, but that $82,500 would be a tough nut.
Anything “typical” that wants to sell right now has to meet conforming loan requirements–anyone who can qualify for and afford jumbo rates right now isn’t going to want anything “typical”. They might be able to get $463k (incl. buyer’s closing costs)–a 90% conforming loan and $46k dp should be workable for more than a few.
Why aren’t more potential sellers asking themselves: “What has your used home salesperson done for you lately?”
Seriously this property is so far north and far away from city public transit it might as well be a suburban property. Do they really think having ‘Chicago’ as a label on their mailing address justifies a 200-250k premium? At the end of the day just another uninteresting, smallish 3/2, in an uninteresting part of the city with a very uninteresting price.
Bob said, “At the end of the day just another uninteresting, smallish 3/2, in an uninteresting part of the city with a very uninteresting price.”
Yes, but this property is in Chicago. That’s what makes it not a suburban property. And there are other little differences that make it not Niles and not Lincolnwood.
But you are right that this is a smallish house in a boring part of the city and it’s the price that makes it wholly unattractive. It’s crap like this that drives people to Naperville and Schaumburg (along with other factors). Like most people I figure if I”m goign to pay $500k for housing in the ‘burbs it may as well be in the burbs. If this property were $250k cheaper it might actually attract a younger couple looking to stay in the city and start family. Just the other day I have a married friend from high school (I grew up in the burbs) who lives in the City. They’ve been looking for houses because they’re going to start a family but they feel priced out of the city because crap this like. They’re strongly considering returning to the ‘burbs where $300k will buy them a house, granted a small house, because they can’t even touch a SFH that’s halfway decent on the northside on his salary alone if she wants to stay at home and work part time. It’s a travesty really.
Homedelete:
It’s interesting you bring that up because I thought the same thing. Cute house but it needs updating. Young couples don’t want to deal with that slightly older kitchen- for instance- in this price range. Not when they can live in Oak Park, Evanston etc. etc. for the same price (or less).
You’re still talking a half a million dollars!
Exactly. Half a million dollars is half a million dollars. As if there weren’t enough reasons for people to move to the ‘burbs. Which is why many young couples do. Although some are beginning to stay in the city as I noted a few months ago, and many want to, the overwhelming majority are saying goodbye to the city life, suburbs here we come.