We Love Authentic Lofts: 1200 N. Wells in Old Town
This 2400-square foot brick loft at 1200 N. Wells in Old Town is what a “loft” is supposed to look like.
Tall ceilings, open space and a ton of brick.
Although the listing calls it “loft-like.”
If this unit isn’t a loft- what is it then?
Here’s the listing:
Dramatic, rarely available 2400+ sqft River North/Old Town 3bd/2ba penthouse duplex-up, loft-like home with hardwood floors throughout main level! Eat-in cherry/granite/stainless steel island kitchen opens to separate dining area & huge living room with 23’ ceilings & exposed brick/timber detail. Crisp white baths include separate shower & jet tub in master suite.
Incredible walk-in closets throughout. Unobstructed city views from both floors & from roof deck. Washer/dryer. Professionally organized closets throughout. Dual-zoned HVAC. Listing agent owned. Offsite rental garage parking included!
Mario Greco at Rubloff has the listing. See more pictures and a virtual tour here. See the property website here.
Unit #3: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 2400 square feet
- Sold in March 2000 for $383,000
- Sold in December 2002 for $430,000
- Currently listed for $699,000
- Assessments of $230 a month
- Taxes of $6,172
- No parking- but rental available nearby
- Central air
- Roof deck
Common roof deck, busy street, the unit is currently rented, not as nice in person.
This is a “flat” remodeled into a loft. A loft means former industrial building, hence the loft-like moniker.
great looking place. heating would be a bi***, but i’m sure whomever buys this won’t care. I bet street noise would be a killer, too.
Not to mention el noise from just beyond the building on the left of the picture.
“el noise”
There’s a highrise b/t the building and the el. Won’t block all the noise, but this should be one of the quietest buildings (el noise-wise; that is a liquor store in the main floor) this close to the el anywhere in town.
I love how sellers are a day late and a dollar short with the pricing. They should have put this on the market LAST year at a LOWER price. Instead, like most FB’s, they wait to long and price too high. Listing agent owned screams FB. See you on the way back down to $350k. Ha!!!! Gotta admit though it looks like a half-way decent place. Lots of space, great for entertaining, cool looking.
HD,
Someone will buy this above 350k. By today’s estimate I’d say its worth 550-600k. Its a nice location and a lot bigger than most 3/2 shoeboxes. Also love the deck.
The screwed ones are those who bought shoebox 3/2s like the one profile on here in Roscoe Village and want 620k for. Those guys are going down to 300-350 I agree. This owner will probably come out ahead is my guess. Certainly lower than 63% ahead but this would be a steal at 2002 or lower prices. The market hasn’t adjusted that far back yet.
Someone could buy this place above $350k but how long will it take this seller to price it reasonably? Secondly, $550-600k is difficult price point in this market as much as $699k is. The listing price is the ’06, ’07 price. Take 50% off that price to get the 2011-2013 price (post alt-a/option arm meltdown). Which brings us to $350k. The Chicago market has dropped 10% and we still have another 40% to go. I’m not kidding either. This isn’t a Dow 50,000 prediction either. I’m just looking at the dark as hell storm cloud overhead and making a prediction that things are going to be pretty messed up for a while. And because other frothier parts of the nation have dropped so quickly doesn’t bode well for our market. How much longer can Chicago be priced on par or more expensive than San Fran????? 50% of chicago prices is much less of a price drop than 50% of san fran prices……the pain is working its way in from the coasts.
What the heck does “offsite rental garage parking included” mean?! That the seller is going to perpetually pay for the new owner’s rental parking?? Seems like “available” would be a lot more accurate than “included….”
spertia,
I assume it means the rented spot is being held for the purchaser of this unit, rather than leaving the purchaser with the task of going out to find a similar spot for a similar price. Nothing nefarious or idiotic here, move along…
To further elaborate, my building (not far from the subject property) has a 6-month waiting list for rental parking spots, so having the right to rent a particular spot “included” does have some value in the context of this apartment/loft’s potential desirability.
homedelete:
“How much longer can Chicago be priced on par or more expensive than San Fran?????”
What alternate universe are you living in where Chicago prices are on par with San Fran, let alone more expensive. Redfin currently has Chicago’s average $/sq. ft. at around $170. Compare that to San Francisco’s $500/sq. ft. average. Not even in the same ballpark. Sure, certain areas of Chicago are inflated, but again, no where *near* average SF levels.
See for yourself…
Chicago: http://www.redfin.com/city/29470/IL/Chicago
San Francisco: http://www.redfin.com/city/17151/CA/San-Francisco
nice unit
love that loft/loft-like feel
If heating ducts are so dominant they should be straight, not crooked. It will be interesting to see what this unit sells for.
homedelete–how, with any sense of reality intact, can you as a professional (lawyer, right?) even possibly make the assertion that Chicago RE prices are on par with SF? You are quickly becoming someone whose postings should simply be overlooked. Life is too short.
John 2, maybe we should start ignoring your posts because you have no critical thinking skills. But anyway, let me hold your hand as we take a look at Morgan’s post from a few days ago. Maybe that will help your understanding.
“Morgan on October 30th, 2008 at 6:09 am
As a former San Franciscan, I am beginning to see listings in Chicago that remind me of the style of S.F. loft units, BUT are at prices that are similar or MORE than identical units are being listed for in San Francisco(!), which is a city that we are always told is FAR more expensive than Chicago. I have to be honest with you, Chicago is a great city, and I live here now, but that pool is only good for four months a year, and in S.F. you would not have to drain the water in October, and if price trends continue, I would rather live in S.F. than Chicago if housing prices end up about the same. I am noticing this same trend in rentals, where in S.F. they are dropping fast, while here in the Chicago they are trending down, but very slowly. (There are 2bd units in Pacific Heights for 2,200 a month, when 4 years ago they would have been 4,200 a month)
I think Sabrina could help me on this since she lived in San Francisco for a period of years also, but I feel Chicago should be about 1/3 less (at least) in cost than S.F. which is a city trapped with water on three sides, and mountains on the south, creating a very tight amount of space to build with high land costs. And, let’s face it, there’s Napa, Pebble Beach, Tahoe skiing, etc. etc. all nearby to help attract many foreign buyers.”
Obviously when he and I speak of ‘on par’ with San Fran we don’t mean areas that none of us would ever live in like Englewood or Pullman. He’s not talking about Oakland, I’m not talking about Englewood. We’re talking about the higher end areas like GC, LV, LP, etc.
Furthermore, San Francisco prices have fallen OVER 35% from the peak and across the bay has seen price declines of 50% or more; The downward trajectory is outright frightening (but is to be expected in the land of the walk-away no-recourse neg am option arm mortgage.) Chicago hasn’t had anything like 35% – 50% decreases. So prices have gotten a lot closer to san francisco prices than you would think and they will continue to move in that direction. Morgan was commenting that some identifical loft properties are more or higher priced in Chicago than San Fran, which would make a lot of sense considering the 35% price drop in the last few months. The world is changing right before your very eyes.
HD:
Rather than combat your hysterical assertions with useless anecdotal evidence, lets look at the data, shall we?
Starting with out baseline of San Francisco, let’s look at both the median ask price/sq ft and the median sold price/sq ft for completeness. Again, I’ll use Redfin.com for my data.
San Fran: http://www.redfin.com/city/17151/CA/San-Francisco
Ask: $609/sq ft
Sold: $527/sq ft
Given you above criteria, let’s limit our Chicago comparison to only the “desirable” neighborhoods for comparison.
Gold Coast: http://www.redfin.com/neighborhood/29865/IL/Chicago/Gold-Coast
Ask: $371/sq ft
Sold: $350/sq ft
Streeterville:
Ask: $472/sq ft
Sold: [incomplete data]
All of Near north side: http://www.redfin.com/neighborhood/35880/IL/Chicago/Near-North-Side
Ask: $431/sq ft
Sold: [incomplete data]
West Loop: http://www.redfin.com/neighborhood/30062/IL/Chicago/West-Loop
Ask: $331/sq ft
Sold: [incomplete data]
Wicker Park: http://www.redfin.com/neighborhood/31100/IL/Chicago/Wicker-Park
Ask: $303/sq ft
Sold: $295/sq ft
Lincoln Park: http://www.redfin.com/neighborhood/28211/IL/Chicago/Lincoln-Park-DePaul
Ask: $347/sq ft
Sold: $295/sq ft
Lake View East: http://www.redfin.com/neighborhood/32439/IL/Chicago/Lake-View-East
Ask: $336/sq ft
Sold: $281/sq ft
All of Lake View: http://www.redfin.com/neighborhood/29811/IL/Chicago/Wrigleyville-Lakeview
Ask: $290
Bid: $286
Please take a minute to look at the data. The most expensive of all Chicago neighborhoods have median $/sq ft at around 75% of the median for *all* of San Fran. Most “desirable” Chicago neighborhoods have a median of 50% of that of San Fran. Factor in just a few less desirable Chicago neighborhoods (but perfectly fine neighborhoods, nonetheless…we aren’t talking humboldt park here) and the median for Chicago drops even further.
Basically, the data simply doesn’t back up your statements. Now I’m sure you know some guy who used to live in SF and will call BS on all my data. But don’t you think actual listing prices beat anecdotal evidence?
Face it, man: you are just dead wrong.
HD got totally owned. HD, U FAIL!
Funny.. I thought he meant SOME properties in Chicago being on par with SF (which is nuts). Maybe i read it wrong but thats how i took it first time. I also thought he said it was ridiculous that any property should be on par with SF.
Oh well.. let you guys knock it around tonight.
See the idiotic corn cob building at 600 sq ft. I just puked one out at $550 a sq ft myself.
TftInChi is the master of using meaningless stats like median price. Anyone who has the most rudimentary knowledge of statistics knows that the median is often not at all representative of real life conditions for a particular instance. In this case, median price per square foot has nothing to do with the real market prices of real homes. Plenty of other posters have already beaten this subject to death so I won’t recap it all.
Price per sq foot proves nothing. Comparable properties in SF tend to be smaller. A a typical 1,200 sq ft attached home in SF is comparable to a 1,500 or 1,600 sq ft attached home Chicago. In the end a townhouse is a townhouse and like the earlier poster said, properties prices between in SF are coming on par on Chicago. Therefore, the ppsf will always be higher in SF even though the asking prices may be the same. Thank you, come again.
Pete.. given the sample size, and apparently low standard deviation of moves month to month it’s a pretty good indicator to me.
“In this case, median price per square foot has nothing to do with the real market prices of real homes.”
Why not? Long and numbers decreasing?
“But don’t you think actual listing prices beat anecdotal evidence?”
If you regularly read this website, you’d understand that listing prices don’t mean a damn thing.
btw.. just to be pre-emptive. I am just comparing chicago to chicago month on month median prices.
It is definitely NOT “worthless”
No response please.. shouldn’t have pressed this. just stuck in front of computer watching crappy football game.
Would not stats such as income strata and unemployment rates be more meaningful NAR doublespeak?
Pete: median price/sq ft isn’t meaningless. Nor is it a complete picture of the market. But it is sure as heck better than something like: “I know a guy who says Chicago prices are the same or higher than prices in SF.” That kind of BS is just subjective, anecdotal garbage.
I am fully aware of the limitations of using the median price (or asking prices, or ANY statistic, for that matter). Those were the best statistics I could find on short notice. I also attempted to include median sold prices where available to give a more balanced look at where buyers and sellers were settling. IOW: closer to where the “true” market for these homes really is. However, with sales slowing, I realize these statistics have serious flaws.
Couple final points on the matter:
1) I would not be at all surprised if there were properties in Chicago which were priced higher than comparable SF properties. However, there are hot areas of Chciago where people have, do and will always pay a premium to live. And just because SOME properties in Chicago sell (or list) for ridiculous premiums doesn’t mean the AVERAGE property in Chicago does. These are what you call outliers. Some of these outliers are fairly priced above the rest of the market. Some aren’t. The market will figure that bit out. But it is nonetheless silly to say that Chicago prices are anywhere NEAR that of SF.
2) Cherry picking extremes and relying on subjective anecdotal evidence is an absurd way to prove a point. Anyone who has been following cribchatter for a while knows there are some absurd prices out there in Chicago right now. But anyone looking at the available data and watching listings day in and day out knows that the Chicago market remains cheap compared to SF and NY. I’m not saying the Chicago market as a whole isn’t over priced, but it is still cheaper–by a wide margin–than SF and NY.
I encourage those doubters still left to do some exploring on Redfin. Browse the hot areas of Chicago, take a look at asking prices, sq. ft., finishes, amenities, etc. Then do the same for hot areas in SF and NY. If you live in Chicago, you’ll walk away feeling pretty lucky compared to those in SF and NY (housing-wise of course).
My intent here is to give a reality check. Yes, we are over priced and the market is in for a correction. But let’s leave the hyperbole and wild speculation at the door, shall we? And let’s judge the value of the properties we discuss in the proper context: the *Chicago* housing market.
HD said:
“Price per sq foot proves nothing. Comparable properties in SF tend to be smaller. A a typical 1,200 sq ft attached home in SF is comparable to a 1,500 or 1,600 sq ft attached home Chicago. In the end a townhouse is a townhouse and like the earlier poster said, properties prices between in SF are coming on par on Chicago. Therefore, the ppsf will always be higher in SF even though the asking prices may be the same. Thank you, come again.”
My word, you are really stretching, aren’t you?
Yes, studio apartments in SOHO tend to be priced similarly to 1-2 bedrooms in Streeterville. That’s why people say Manhattan is a crazy-expensive place to live. That’s why Chicago is an objectively *cheaper* place to live. That’s why Downers Grove is a cheaper place to live than Chicago.
Sure, we could try to normalize for cost of living, average price per sq. ft., average income and every other outside factor to determine normalized values for each market. Then we could compare those and fool ourselves into thinking that we were making a “fair” comparison of the two market. But in the end, it none of that matters.
What DOES matter is what price buyers and sellers are willing to settle on for a given property. IOW: what the true market price is for a given property. You can derisively say, “well those buyers are idiots to pay that much for these properties.” But the fact remains: so long as buyers and sellers come together on a value and transactions continue to be made, that is the *true* market value of the property.
One thing I think we *all* agree on is that less buyers and sellers are coming together right now and that, plus the tightening credit market will cause downward pressure on property values. Though some of you believe you have a crystal ball and “know” where the bottom is, I don’t think any of us truly do know. I myself am more optimistic. I believe we are in for major price corrections, but not long-term great depression style pain.
Feel free to be considerably more pessimistic…just don’t expect me to sit quietly by and take it as fact.
“a typical 1,200 sq ft attached home in SF is comparable to a 1,500 or 1,600 sq ft attached home Chicago.”
Three guesses why that is.
A: Because a 1500-1600 sq ft attached home in EsEff would be too expensive. They build them smaller to keep prices down, not b/c people in EsEff want something smaller.
TftInChi,
Ok, look, you’re right. SF prices are crazy and they don’t even compare to Chicago prices. I have an uncle in Sunnyvale and his 4 bedroom ranch with an addition was worth over a million last year. That same house in northbrook would be half the price. In my overly bearish and market crashing internet persona I jumped the gun and said that SF prices were on par with Chicago price. It was one sentence buried in a larger rant. It’s not like I was trying to write an treatise on the topic.
You and I are in agreement. No one knows where the bottom is. But we are in for major price corrections. Not great depression style but definintely severe recession style. This unit will return to its 2000 price i.e. pre-bubble and toxic financing days.
“anon (tfo) on November 7th, 2008 at 9:45 am
“a typical 1,200 sq ft attached home in SF is comparable to a 1,500 or 1,600 sq ft attached home Chicago.”
Three guesses why that is.
A: Because a 1500-1600 sq ft attached home in EsEff would be too expensive. They build them smaller to keep prices down, not b/c people in EsEff want something smaller.”
That’s one good guess. My guess is that space is at a premium in the Bay Area. they are surrounded by water and mountains. The only buildable land is in the valley and virtually every usable every square inch has been paved over or built upon. There’s a lot of people living in the region and building smaller is the only way to pack ’em in. Unlike Chicago which is surrounded by cornfields in 3 of four directions.
More pain in Lincoln Park – 2030 N Lincoln Unit G sold for $785k in Nov 2008. Purchased in 2005 for $715k. Worst market in 30 years and this guy still made a ouple of bucks.
2131 n Magnolia – Sold in Nov 2008 for $650k. Purchased in 2001 for $380k. Why why why? HD has his money under his bed while this guy made $270k living in his investment.
425 w Dickens unit F purchased in 2000 for $760k and sold in Nov 2008 for $1,225,000. How can they afford these losses?
Just like equities, some buy smart, while others chase returns.
At those rate increase in LP pretty soon every property will cost over a million dollars! Everybody wins in the Lincoln Park ponzi scheme!
Just goes to the only thing I have claimed since the start. The prime areas have help up while those who chased higher prises in less desirable areas paid too much! The credit markets have to clear or LP is coming down as well. So far so good though.
“some buy smart”
The SHill has that right, key word being “some.” 1/3 of his buyer examples above did ok. Those would be the sellers of Magnolia and Dickens. The seller of the Lincoln Ave prop certainly lost money when rent savings and transaction costs are figured in.
As for the 3 buyers this month? Not so smart. Right, SHill?
“The only buildable land is in the valley and virtually every usable every square inch has been paved over or built upon.”
Which are you using for comparison HD, EsEff only, or the whole Bay Area? I thought we were talking about EsEff only, not Sunnyvale (dump that it is).
And the reason that the hills aren’t buildable isn’t b/c they aren’t “buildable”, it’s b/c they are protected open space. And in EsEff, the hills are mostly built on, too.
Well G – Do the math and I think you are wrong. The unit rented back in 2006 for $3,500 (unit next door). If the buyer financed at 80% (6% interest rate) his monthly housing exp would have been $3,800. If you consider tax savings of 25% for interest and taxes you would save approx. $800 per month. for a net monthly housing exp of $3,000.
Just rough numbers for you to consider.
G – Looks like 100% of my examples did just fine.
A SHill to the end since it knows no better.
What about opportunity cost on that down pymt? How many buyers of $700K condos get full advantage of the mort int deduction? I call BS on the SHill’s rent claim; similar units can be rented today for under $3K. Besides, isn’t it the SHill that ridicules others for considering the down payment in investment decisions?
Like I said, 2 of the SHill’s 6 buyer examples made good buying decisions. The SHill claims that they all did. Hilarious.
Given the SHill’s penchant for ambiguity, perhaps by “did just fine” it means that a commission was paid. Our disagreement might just be perspective.
You give no information on what rehabbing the sellers did since they purchased the properties. They may have sunk considerable amounts into improving their properties, which could change the outcomes significantly.
Steve Heitman
More pain in Lincoln Park – 2030 N Lincoln Unit G sold for $785k in Nov 2008. Purchased in 2005 for $715k. Worst market in 30 years and this guy still made a ouple of bucks.
2131 n Magnolia – Sold in Nov 2008 for $650k. Purchased in 2001 for $380k. Why why why? HD has his money under his bed while this guy made $270k living in his investment.
425 w Dickens unit F purchased in 2000 for $760k and sold in Nov 2008 for $1,225,000. How can they afford these losses?
Just like equities, some buy smart, while others chase returns.
G – Show me a 3 bedroom 2.5 bath in east lincoln park that can be rented for under $3k. I call your b.s. G! What is the opportunity cost of $140k over 3 years? Show me your calculation please?
Steve, what about the assessments, taxes, insurance, maintenance, and all the other costs that buyers pay and renters don’t?
You must factor that into the rent/buy equation, and more often than not it makes no sense to buy instead of rent at current prices in expensive neighborhoods.
Last year my rent increased $100 per month, or $1200 per year. My landlord’s taxes went up by more than that. And I heard assessments in my building were due for a big increase as well. The rental market would not support all of this being bundled into the rent increase.
Pete – Everything but the insurance is factored in. The insurance is paid by renters and owners so there is no variance.
“If the buyer financed at 80% (6% interest rate)”
Stevo, you’re calculations are off, as the only 6% money generally available is conforming. $521,250 is the purchase price with an 80% conforming mortgage.
“The insurance is paid by renters and owners so there is no variance.”
Tell me who sells you your homeowner’s insurance for the price of renter’s insurance. I’d love that deal.
This unit is in an association where the building insurance is paid through your assessments. The insurance you take out for yourself is for the contents of the unit similar to what a renter would have.
You guys shold continue to rent with your knowledge of the costs and benefits associated with owning.
anon – we are talking about someone who purchased in 2005 and whether he would be better off today if he had rented the unit vs if he bought the unit.
You guys amaze me?
In that case, you overestimated the rate.
Also, serious question (only ever owned SFH): is condo owner’s insurance really the same as renter’s? The association pays loss insurance for fixtures, too?
What is that buzzing around my ear?
“G – Show me a 3 bedroom 2.5 bath in east lincoln park that can be rented for under $3k. I call your b.s. G!”
How’s this?
Status Date address BR BA Rent
RNTD Jan-05 236 N WILLOW 3 2.1 $2,050
RNTD Apr-05 675 W WRIGHTWOOD 3 2.1 $2,200
RNTD Aug-08 236 W WILLOW 3 2.1 $2,475
RNTD Oct-06 675 W WRIGHTWOOD 3 2.1 $2,500
RNTD Jan-06 2635 N BURLING 3 2.1 $2,500
RNTD Apr-05 435 W ST JAMES 3 3 $2,600
RNTD Nov-05 2625 N HALSTED 3 2.1 $2,700
RNTD Dec-06 1709 N BURLING 3 3 $2,990
RNTD Sep-08 344 W DICKENS 3 2.1 $2,995
RNTD Aug-07 425 W GRANT 3 2.1 $2,800
RNTD Nov-07 2130 N SEDGWICK 3 2.1 $2,750
RNTD Feb-07 443 W EUGENIE 4 3 $2,988
RNTD Jul-08 1812 N HUDSON 3 2.1 $2,950
bzzzz bzzzz bzzzz.
“What is the opportunity cost of $140k over 3 years? Show me your calculation please?”
If it was all this buyer had to short the heck out of the FIRE economy the last couple of years and they failed to do it? I would put the opportunity cost to a conservative investor at well over $500K.
Some buy smart, right?
“How’s this?”
Crummy–those are all conversions, or out-dated, or on major streets, or have bad naieghbors, or prohibit pets, or allow pets or something.
isn’t this the building that just get hit by a fire truck yesterday?
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/11/fire-department-vehicle-involved-in-crash.html#more
If you invest that 140k in the dow for the last three years you would have lost 17%…… I not sure that would have been any better.
Why would anyone have invested everything long in the Dow the last three years? Then again, I guess it would be the same type that invested in RE the last three years.
What does that SHill always say? “Stupid is as stupid does.”
G,
If you invested in the nasdaq you would be down 28%.
The unit on Lincoln is a 2,800 sq foot duplex at the point. I should have stated luxury rentals in east lp.
G & ANON – How would your shorts have looked in 2005, 2006, and 2007? Are you telling me you guys would have shorted the market in 2005 and watched your money lose while the markets rallied for 3 years?
You guys are so full of BS it is funny. The markets were up for the past 3 years and only turned down a few months back. In your world we should have all purchased homes and equities and then sold at the very top. Easy to say when you live staring in the rear view mirror.
The S&P has been down 28%, the Rusell is down 26.5%. If you look at the averages for the last three years for all the major ideces they are down. But Im sure a smart guy like you has had stellar returns.
So what is the real opportunity cost of 140k over the last 3 years?
Valasko.. Always has been and always will be to use risk free rate. Anything else is unfair.
“I should have stated luxury rentals in east lp.”
So I was right.
“G & ANON – How would your shorts have looked ”
They looked mighty fine, thanks for asking big fella … Oh, short positions in the market? I made no reference to that; as we all (should) know, the market can stay irrationla longer than one can remain solvent.
Ze-So what would you like to use a 1.75% rate of return, fine. But G puts the opportunity cost of 140k over three years at 500k….. now thats unfair. Just trying to make a point.
It is ridiculous and unacceptable and juvenile (that coming from the weed growing guy). You use the risk free rate, anything other is absurd. I understand every argument made to the contrary and it is not the way it is done. Actually you can do month by month retroactive to get a fair historical compounded. Anything else suggested deserves to get a pen thrown at their head.
End of story. Cribchatter will use risk free rate. It has been decided. Period!
🙂
TIPS rate or Illinois munis might have the highest risk free rate. But it would have to be GO munis not revenue bonds. No way is 140k the opportunity cost of 500k over 3 years though.
Ze- I have no problem with that.
Uh, you both missed the point.
Let’s csll that one a toss up?
How will the three new buyers fare? Do the math.
G, My long term option is that housing will underperform all other forms of investment. But we really don’t know how these 3 buyers will fare. What is their time horizon? What will the econmony do?
If the US ends up with hyper-inflation they will do much better than holding currency. Who knows.
On thing I do know is your opportunity cost analysis rediculous.
Have a great weekend!
ridiculous…..
“is rediculous.” I need a drink, sorry guys.
Have a great weekend, too!
What opportunity cost analysis? It is ridiculous to suggest I performed one.
“I would put the opportunity cost to a conservative investor at well over $500K.” -G
Why deceive, T2?
Here’s my full comment.
“If it was all this buyer had to short the heck out of the FIRE economy the last couple of years and they failed to do it? I would put the opportunity cost to a conservative investor at well over $500K.
Some buy smart, right?”
LMAO.
The price on this place is now listed at $639,900. It looks like this property has been listed a long time. I don’t think they are setting the market.
Also, the place looks like it was decorated in the early 80’s in the bathrooms.
Closed at $580,000 per the MLS. Looks like some people were correct (but not HD w/ a guess of $350,000).
“Bob on November 4th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Someone will buy this above 350k. By today’s estimate I’d say its worth 550-600k.”
Woot woot. HD I was guessing the late 2008/early 2009 price. You were likely guessing the 2014/2015 price with that 350k figure.