We Love Authentic Lofts: 1147 W. Ohio in West Town
How big do you like your loft?
How about 3200 square feet?
Then this 2-bedroom loft at 1147 W. Ohio in West Town is for you.
Here’s the listing:
FANTASTIC LIVE-WORK OPPORTUNITY IN THE CITY! THIS SUN FILLED OPEN TIMBER LOFT W/ APPROX 3,200 SQ FT OF LUXURY. FEATURES REMOTE CONTROL SHADES, DROP DOWN MOVIE SCREEN, CHEF’S KTCHN CUST CABS & HIGH END APPL-JADO & WOLF.
ROOF DECK W/ PICTURESQUE VIEWS OF CITY. DESIGNER MARBLE BTH JACUZZI & STEAM SHOWER. 14′ TIMBER CEILINGS, MODIFIED HEAT/AIR, LAUNDRY, & WIC.
Chicago Home Estates, Inc. has the listing. See more pictures and a virtual tour here.
Unit #203: 2 bedrooms, 1 bath, 3200 square feet
- Sold in September 2004 for $540,000
- Currently listed for $774,400 (parking space included)
- Assessments of $550 a month
- Taxes of $8020
With 14′ ceilings and all that exposed brick and 3,200 sq ft., the $550 pm assessment cannot include heat. I would guess another $6,000 for gas during the heating months.
Of course that depends on the heating system, but in other similar spaces I’ve seen, little prudent thought has been given to installing systems that heat adequately and efficiently. Mostly, I’ve seen high BTU, 80% forced air systems dropped in with ornamental duct work. These are great if you want to spend $2-3 per sq. ft. per heating season for energy, like to wear a coat inside during the winter, and enjoy 0% indoor humidity during the winter
Just an example, if someone paid the asking price for this loft, put 20% down and got a loan at 6.5%; when adding all the actual costs of living in this unit such as utilities, taxes, insurance, and assessment, the owner’s monthly payment would be $5,800. What kind of annual income would be required to meet this commitment? $300k per year? The people I know who earn that much money would not squander it on a land yacht such as this.
The interwebs indicate the owner might be a trader. Maybe he can sell it to one of his rich trader or broker friends. I’m sure he’ll find someone to afford $5,800 a month. The rich don’t live like us. Maybe SH can buy it. He makes $350k a year. Are you interested Steven?
Wow. Who needs a parking space, if they had an elvator I could park my Jeep in there.
Maybe he needs to sell it to cover a margin call.
HD – I said I make more than $350k. Don’t assume I make so little 🙂
Looks like the economy is in better shape than all have suggested. Growing economy in the face of a financial crisis? Looks like your prediction for a crash in pricing has little merit.
I think this will end with 2006-2009 being remembered as a soft overall Chicago market with lessons to be learned about over paying for new contruction.
Any thoughts from the “world is ending” crowd?
It is. I’ve made a heck of a lot of $$ on Fannie and Freddie! 😉
“Maybe he needs to sell it to cover a margin call.” or maybe he is mvoing into a $2 million single family. Don;t be so negative all the time.
This is an example of where I believe the Chicago housing market will suffer. There just aren’t enough buyers who want to live in and maintain a loft larger than a used car lot.
How many people earn $300k per year? Of those few, how many will want units like this or wish to live in the soviet style mid- and high-rise construction surrounding the downtown?
As stated, the people I know who earn high incomes or are wealthy, did not get that way by making imprudent, long-term decisions on housing.
Housing is rediculous. Maybe someone on this site can explain this to me. There is a development in our hood that is called Wilson Yard. It is for low income people. They are essentially two highrises. (Think Robert Taylor homes with Granite.) The whole thing is sponsored by a TIF. Now, here is the kicker, the developer wants more money from the TIF because each unit costs $377,000 to build!! And that is the minimum! Some ae over $400K.
I would love to sell my place to the goverment at that price, and let whomever they decide to live there live there! Thoughts?
While I don’t understand how Chicago can support so many homes that go for over 500K (especially if they only have one bath!), I do think it’s silly to assume that the number of potential buyers equals the number of people who make 300K per year. I think some of the people who buy places like this put a lot of money down. They might have a big nest egg from years of saving and a windfall or two when they sold houses during the boom. Some single guy with a decent income might have a roommate who makes good money as well, but one wants to buy and one wants to rent. I’m not saying this place is well-priced. I’m just saying there are more people out there who can afford an 800K home than just people who make 350K per year.
Steve H,
While I think that Chicago will do with this Boom / Crisis what it does with everyone, wind up and down slowly as compared with everyplace else.
I am not sure what you are defining as new construction (completely new from ground up, or does gutted to the studs count too?) I don’t think the market has gotten anywhere near to unwinding. Prices for small buildings (some of which are owner occupied) are still way out of line with rents (which have been soft). As people realize the true cost of ownership, the reality of tightening credit, and the fact that they have so far removed the building from being a rental unit again (think 700-800K 2 flats in Lakeview and LP) I think this is the next wave of foreclosures and walk away, as they come back into line, they are going to start taking all the small building condos back to reality with them, and then down the line. This will affect the avg joe.
The other killer, incomes are not keeping pace with the increases in the cost of living like in the 70’s
I agree that there are more people who can afford $800k than make $350k a year, but, both demographics subsets are extremely small. The wild card in this all was the toxic financing so prevalent during the boom i.e. neg am option arm loans and the like. Those loans turned a $500k buyer with traditional financing into a $800k buyer with toxic financing.
Even more, this seller is asking for a $235k premium over his purchase price after four years – just because he lived there! Typical rich trader arrogance. Good luck with that buddy. I hope your 5/1 IO ARM resets next year and you go into foreclosure. That way I can buy your home from the bank for $400k.
Danny–Completely agreed! Yes there are other prospective buyers who have the financial wherewithall to buy a high-end loft or condo. However, when looking at the fact that so much of the new housing inventory is made up of similarly impracticle loft or apartment-like units, what percentage of these high wage/net worth buyers would want to spend three quarters of a million dollars on an indoor used car lot at Racine and Ohio?
I reiterate that high income/net worth people usually make prudent decisions when making such a large illiquid purchase in which they’re handing over $200k for a down payment. Young purchasers who put no money down on a $500k condo give no thought as to the long-term commitment and lifestyle consequences in making such a purchase.
Totally agree with cjriis. Furthermore, the $500k condos of 2004 are now the $800k condos of 2008. Like this unit here.
cjriis,
Excellent points. I think this is precisely why most of those younger people who got caught up in the condo mania of Chicago will never really be wealthy. They are now suffering massive capital losses and are locked into their impractical purchasing decisions for many years to come. The days of 75k income hipsters livin’ the 400k condo dream are definitely over. These people are not good with money and long-term are destined to be remain middle class.
All because 1) they look ‘cool’ in front of their friends, 2) followed their parents midguided advice that RE is always a good investment and 3) some idiot bank gave them a toxic loan.
Don’t you guys ahve anything else to do? All the data supports that prices have been relatively stable. Who are all these people losing money? What about the people who are making money?
“All the data supports that prices have been relatively stable. ”
Right. And that massive inventory of unsold downtown condos is going to go away all on it’s own and have no downward effect on prices.
Talk to me when prices are down. Youa re just speculating right now.
Steve – i don’t konw about you, but i look at the price declines as an opportunity to make money. There is LOTS of opportunity out there, but filtering out the crap takes time. I’m going to buy as much as i can over the next two to three years. But it’s only possible for me to do this cause prices have come down.
Bubbleboi,
I am with you. But there is alot of crap out there so do your research.
Money money money! I with you on making the money.
$240 per foot for this place is OVERPRICED.. brokers are confused STILL at how to price these units in this market… not to mention last time I heard jumbo loans are very difficult to get, interest only loans are almost non-existent, inventory levels are at 20 year highs (especially for the typical condo in Chicago).. sounds all negative but I highly doubt this unit will sell for that price when you can go about 8 blocks west and buy yourself a wonderful single family for the same price, with the same square footage and a two car garage and no assessments…..
yep, no recession..
“data released by the HOPE NOW coalition on Wednesday finds that prime foreclosure starts have finally moved ahead of subprime foreclosure starts, for the first time since the industry coalition began collecting data in July of last year — and likely for the first time in a much longer timeframe, as well, sources suggested to HousingWire Thursday afternoon.”
http://www.housingwire.com/2008/08/28/prime-foreclosure-starts-surge-past-subprime-in-july/
also from the same article. Looks like large number of hope now modified mortgages are already defaulting…I could have told them that. People don’t want to be debt slaves when house across the street is selling at significant discount.
“On July 16, Moody’s Investors Service noted that 42 percent of subprime adjustable-rate mortgages modified during the first half of 2007 had become 90 or more days delinquent by the end of March 2008. That number was well north of 50 percent when looking at previously-modified loans 60 or more days delinquent.
“
I agree with Danny. The people who buy “bling, bling” places like this probably have some cash to put down.
What is seriously underestimated on this blog, imho, (but I’m not a broker, so maybe I’m wrong ;-)) is the amounts of people who get family money to put down.
I know someone who sold a unit at Block Y a few years back, the buyer was a girl with a mortgage of $150K, the balance was put up by her father.
There has to be some Highland Park/Deerfield type punk, who gets some money to put down. That’s who I think are buyers of this type of unit.
‘Money money money! I with you on making the money.’
Steve you talk about money and your income so much on this anonymous message board I think we should all pass around a collection plate for you so we can get you some nice spinning rims and a sweet grill.
What recession?
“Gross domestic product, or GDP, grew at a 3.3 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter, its fastest pace in nearly a year, the Commerce Department reported Thursday. The revised reading was much better than the government’s initial estimate of a 1.9 percent pace and exceeded economists’ expectations for a 2.7 percent growth rate.”
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080828/economy.html
Am I the only who would be unable to sleep in that big old bedroom, listening to the creaking floorboards and the scurrying mice? It doesn’t look like a home, it looks like a loft office space with a bed pushed into a corner.
“GDP, grew at a 3.3 percent annual rate”
That is the “real” growth rate. The nominal growth was 4.6%, which the BEA deflated by 1.2% to account for inflation.
Of course, the CPI is actually measuring inflation at 5.6% (yoy for July). If you like monthly CPI numbers, July was 0.8% (9.6% annualized) with a “core” inflation of 0.3% (3.6%).
To me, that sounds like real GDP growth was more like -1%.
Obviously the BEA has no clue what they are doing and should listen to you.
Eh — govt economists dueling is always amusing.
Convenient how the next scheduled revision of this data is after the election…
For those who actually care about what goes into the “statistics” that are published, The Big Picture takes a brief whack at the difference between the GDP deflator and the CPI: http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/08/are-you-measuri.html
Basically, the two measures track each other extremely well, except during 1979 (leading into the ugly early 80s recession). The difference reported today is almost as big as it was then.
“Even more, this seller is asking for a $235k premium over his purchase price after four years – just because he lived there! Typical rich trader arrogance.”
Wow, Homedelete’s true colors come out! What a pathetic, jealous loser!
Kevin, are you kidding me? You can’t just cherry pick ONE MONTH’S inflation number, annualize it, and then take it out of QUARTERLY GDP! You are a complete dicktard!
D
The last time year-over-year CPI was below 1.2% (the GDP deflator used for this quarter) was June 2002. Only four months since 1990 have had yoy CPI that low (Jan, Feb, May, June 2002).
All the yoy CPI numbers for 2008 so far have been above 3.9%. All the annualized monthly CPI numbers for 2008 have been above 3.5%. The annualized quarterly CPI number for Q2 2008 is 9.9%.
Certainly looks like I cherry-picked the data that best served my purposes. Namely, the easiest to find.
I can see Kevin’s a big “Schiff” fan. His data is solid.
but but.. El presidente Jorge Bushco said that the economic fundamentals are strong. Now he would not lie to us would he?
I also noticed that q4 2007 gdp was quietly revised to a negative number…This recession will not be advertised.
Deaconblue said:
“You are a complete dicktard!”
Wow amazing rhetorical flourish, so very convincing….we are all so impressed.
Enough of this; I want to know what exactly is going on with that ceiling in the kitchen! It looks terrible.
ragingbullwinkle – I can get you a Jumbo 5/1 ARM at 6%. Not so bad now is it? Before you bash the arm remember that the majority move before 5 years of owning.
There is no way that you can spin that 3.3% GDP is bad. They use the same measurements every quarter, so if this is bad then I guess we haven’t had any growth in the economy for years? I don’t think the economy is out of the woods by any means, but 3.3% is good, no matter how you slice it.
The BEA uses the same *methodology* every quarter, and they have documented that the chained dollar method deals poorly with rapidly changing quantities or prices (NIPA Handbook, page 4-20). This economy, just like the late 1970s, is experiencing a significant and rapid spike in oil prices.
The change in the price index for this quarter (1.2% annualized) is the smallest since 1998 Q4, and is substantially smaller than for 2007 Q4 (2.8%) or 2008 Q1 (2.6%). These are calculated from NIPA Table 1.1.4.
The BEA measurement of nominal GDP growth is fairly reliable — the economy did grow at something like a 4.6% annual rate. The difficult part is measuring price changes so that they can estimate how much actual physical (real) production changed — if the price change is measured lower than it really is, it will appear that the economy produced more stuff than it really did. The estimated 3.3% real GDP growth doesn’t appear plausible given other measures of the economy’s health, like unemployment (especially the underemployment U-6 numbers) or personal income (DPI and PCE) or gross domestic income (GDI).
To be clear:
“3.3% is good, no matter how you slice it.”
3.3% is implausibly good.
Digging deeper (because I haven’t been happy with my superficial explanation as to why the 3.3% GDP growth seems wrong)…
3.1 points of the 3.3% growth is tied to changes in imports/exports — an increase in exports increased GDP by 1.65% and a decrease in imports increased GDP by 1.45%.
Roughly half of the increase in exports is due to a 30% increase in industrial supplies and materials. This is probably recovery from the auto parts strike in March — shipments to Mexico and Canada that should have happened in March (Q1) instead happened in April (Q2).
On the import side, if we exclude petroleum, imports actually *increased* which would decrease GDP. Petroleum imports decreased by a calculated 40% in *real* terms (roughly 40% fewer barrels). Problem: the imports were measured in (current) dollars but then deflated to 2000 dollars using a petroleum price index, and that index claims that 2008Q2 petroleum cost 25% more than 2008Q1 petroleum (397 vs 320, with 2000 prices scaled to 100). That appears to be based on spot prices (which EIA reports were up roughly 25% Q1 to Q2), even though a fair portion of oil instead trades under futures or other long-term contracts. This will have the effect of lowering the experienced price of oil in Q2, effectively increasing the (calculated) real imports. EIA also reports that there was no decrease in oil production, oil consumption, or other energy consumption between Q1 and Q2 — suggesting that real petroleum imports should be roughly flat.
Bottom line: part of the 3.3% GDP increase is driven by recovery from a Q1 auto parts strike and another large part is driven by petroleum prices.
Sources:
BEA NIPA Tables 1.1.2, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, and 4.2.4: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N
EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook for August 2008 Tables 1 and 2: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/aug08.pdf
Heitman- I should have added no-doc to my jumbo comment, those are the ones that were the jewels and now they are non-existent .. can you find those? I highly doubt it ..
Deaconblue, do you EVER have anything to add to the conversation other than personal attacks? Like maybe some actual information?
Kevin,
Obviously there is a lot of noise in quarter to quarter GDP data. However, even if Q2 was a rebound from Q1, Q1 was .9% GDP. So, the first half of the year was .9% + 3.3% which equals an average of 2.1% for the first half of the year. Nothing to write home about, but clearly not recessionary either!
D