We Love Authentic Lofts: A True Penthouse in the Donohue Annex: 727 S. Dearborn in Printers Row
This 3-bedroom loft at 727 S. Dearborn, in the historic Donohue Annex, in Printers Row is the kind of authentic loft many loft-lovers dream about.
It has a 44×22 private rooftop deck but you may never go out there as you can enjoy the sun from the huge vaulted glass ceiling in the comfort of your own living room.
The kitchen has been updated with Sub Zero and Miele appliances.
Many of the bedrooms have no full-walls, a sign of a “real” loft.
The unit has central air conditioning and in-unit washer/dryer. There’s no parking with this building (but you can purchase a spot in the building across the street for around $50,000.)
Cynthia Bauer at Sudler Sotheby’s has the listing. See the virtual tour and complete set of pictures here (including the deck).
See the listing here.
Unit #1012: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 3500 square feet
- Sold in October 1990 for $300,000
- Sold in August 1992 for $550,000
- Sold in June 2006 for $1.05 million
- Currently listed for $1.125 million
- Assessments of $1836 a month (includes heat, cable)
- Taxes of $8850
- Central Air
- In-unit washer/dryer
- 44×22 private rooftop deck
This place ROCKS.
Yeah this place is pretty much full of awesome.
Is that a person in the corner of the first picture (of the studio)?
Place looks sweet though and like the printers row area. Though my guess is it will probably go for less than $1M, but I’m just going off the $75K increase since 2006. We’ll see..
Normally I’m not a fan of lofts. But I am a fan of skylights and I must say that airplane hanger is mondo cool.
This is one of those properties instead of reducing it as it ages on the MLS perhaps just keep it listed forever and wait for the right buyer to come along. My guess is someone will pay a premium for this.
Very few loft condos in Chicago make me go “wow”. This is among them.
Unique enough to sell and yet not unique enough to scare everyone off. This place is awesome.
All cash deal in ’06. Wow. Don’t see many of those on CC. Too bad the owner bought at the top of the market b/c he’s going to lose money but that’s par for the course this recession. It’s a great unit.
Sweeeeeeeeeeet, now this is urban livin brothers. love the art studio awesome!!!
one thing i do wonder what is the cooling bill like in this place (its not a part of the ass fee)
Yeah, I wondered the same thing, Groove, after living in a very-expensive-to-heat-and-cool one bed loft. But I figure that whoever buys this probably isn’t too concerned with utility bills…
Awesome place.
Awesome bones, but needs work – maybe $100M into it?
For $1MM I’m not going to be happy with glass block, ceramic tile in the kitchen, and utility grade carpet (poorly stretched at that). Bathroom pic is awful too. Mega-potential though!
Michael – I believe assessments include heat. Crank up the thermostat!
It doesn’t “need” work, its perfectly livable as it is… but yeah eventually i’d want to replace the things you mentioned 8)
“Too bad the owner bought at the top of the market b/c he’s going to lose money but that’s par for the course this recession.”
If they paid cash its my guess they couldn’t care less. People that pay cash for properties like this probably have more NW than just tied up in this property. At the end of the day they’re still wealthy, comfortable and in a good situation. Total 180 degree market vs. someone who put 10% down and has no other assets and is facing financial ruin.
“Too bad the owner bought at the top of the market b/c he’s going to lose money but that’s par for the course this recession. It’s a great unit.”
How much money would he have lost if he took that money and put it in the stock market and rented instead?
And if it sells at even 95% ask, it looks like he’s going to break even.
“Bob on September 10th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
If they paid cash its my guess they couldn’t care less. People that pay cash for properties like this probably have more NW than just tied up in this property. At the end of the day they’re still wealthy, comfortable and in a good situation. Total 180 degree market vs. someone who put 10% down and has no other assets and is facing financial ruin.”
One thing that people on this site often neglect to consider is that their might still be no net effect to this seller, even if they take a loss on this property. If they stay in market, move to a similarly priced home that has suffered a similar reduction in value, they’ll be purchasing the new home for a lower price than they would have paid at peak bubble pricing. In fact, if they’re moving to a more expensive home, they coule stand to make a net gain, because they’ll lose less on the current sale than they’ll “save” on the new purchase.
good point bradford, you 4500 sq ft livin silly purple monkey you 🙂
HD…Homes featured on this blog are a very small percentage of the overall market. I believe but haven’t check the latest stastics that 30-40% percentage have no mortgage; I being one of them. You need to look beyond what you deal with all day…….
HD said… “All cash deal in ‘06. Wow. Don’t see many of those on CC.”
Nice staged photo of the living room area. It might appear a bit smaller if you position the couch and chairs in such a manner that you could actually walk between them and the coffee table.
But that’s not a major gripe. Nice place. Don’t think it’ll fetch asking but still decent overall.
Bradford,
He would have been even better off renting and having his money sit in a money market account….. Looking to buy now!
Hindsight is 20/20. Also when the Reserve Primary Fund broke the buck there was significant uncertainty about the safety of MM funds until the FDIC stepped in. Many investors in this fund were locked out and prevented from accessing their money for months–not my definition of liquidity.
Remember MM funds at brokerages were not FDIC backed (they are now, for the time being) and those at regulated depository institutions are only insured up to FDIC limits. These are minor nuances few of us have to worry about but these are worries I wish I had.
Maybe you misunderstood. This was a million dollar all cash deal in 2006. This isn’t a paid off mortgage, it was no mortgage, all cash, in 2006, at over $1,000,000. That’s something you don’t see everyday.
And yeah, rich people don’t care about losing money. They’re not like the rest of us. Of course rich people care about losing money, they probably care even more than the average person does.
“valasko on September 10th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
HD…Homes featured on this blog are a very small percentage of the overall market. I believe but haven’t check the latest stastics that 30-40% percentage have no mortgage; I being one of them. You need to look beyond what you deal with all day……. “
HD, I agree with you….. but my guess is when you get into million dollar properties the percentages get even higher. My sister-in-law bought a +$3 million dollar house last year all cash, and she did this before she sold the house she was living in….
And rich people do care about losing money……. they just have the resources to ride out the bad times, sometimes positioning themseleve to make every more money in the long run.
valasko-We get it. You and your family are rich. My guess is you aren’t the one who earned the money though. Most uber rich don’t subtly brag about it either.
The amount matters. Lets say someone with 3MM net worth loses 80% of it: they still have 600k left. They can still afford a luxury car and a nice house and pay cash for it and have a very decent lifestyle.
What about some schmoe like the rest of us? Lets say we had 100k saved up and lost that same percent. Now down to 20k, that vanished 80k can’t be used as a downpayment on a very nice house and the lifestyle impacts are more severe.
There were plenty of million dollar homes financed during the boom with jumbo and super jumbo loans. CC had a 1,000,000 condo a few months ago (i can’t find it now) where the buy bought in 2006 and financed 90% of it; i personally know two people that bought for more than a mil, one with no money down, and the other with 25% down. If it was bought for over a mil during the boom, more often than not, it involved a super jumbo. I know someone else who bought a house right outside the city limits for 950,000 and financed $880k of it. That’s why I was impressed to see a million dollar cash deal in 2006. it happens, occasionally.
So, this listing begs the following question: Do you think that large (3000 sq foot plus), true lofts with character and real outdoor space (large enough for 12 person dinner) are holding their value better in this real estate economy than other similarly sized units or smaller lofts (2 bedroom) that don’t have wide open spaces.
“That’s why I was impressed to see a million dollar cash deal in 2006. it happens, occasionally.”
Well I believe the ratio of poseur wealth (debt based consumption) to real wealth (equity based consumption) is still incredibly high. It was bound to happen that we would see a legitimately rich person in one of these featured listings sooner or later.
Thats why I find amusement in watching the poseurs flame out. They never did anything to create wealth in life (or even inherit), they all came out of the woodwork once they found a banker willing to play along, and many are going to lose what little equity they had due to cash flow issues from wanting to live the high life and excessive speculation.
It will hold its value in the sense that it will sell for more than similiar but inferior properties. All properties were influenced by bubble pricing.
Bradford,
I say that all the time to my financially inastute buddy who just had his second kid. I keep telling him to stop thinking he is long his home but really short the one he needs to soon move into. Much better for him to see the market keep coming off.
“If they stay in market, move to a similarly priced home that has suffered a similar reduction in value, they’ll be purchasing the new home for a lower price than they would have paid at peak bubble pricing. In fact, if they’re moving to a more expensive home, they coule stand to make a net gain, because they’ll lose less on the current sale than they’ll “save” on the new purchase.”
Thats all fine and dandy if they’re not underwater and can bring a substantial down payment to the new domicile. Unfortunately for most who went long housing within the past decade, thats not the case. You’d need to at least breakeven after transaction costs as well as have money saved for a downpayment on the new place.
Those that bought 1999-2009 I’d argue can’t do this (for 1999-2002 at least in terms of upgrading their residence, for 2003-today at all).
Those that bought prior, or even own their house outright, are indeed still sitting pretty. Yet for some reason I think it will be a tough sell to lure the own-outright crowd into upgrading to a much nicer/bigger pad. If they could’ve upgraded easily during the boom years but passed shows an amount of restraint those that fostered the boom never had.
Maybe empty nesters looking for a downtown luxury pad after the youngins move out..maybe.
I have seen a number of folks who could pay cash for their $1 million plus properties. However, most do not because it is not really a prudent investment in most cases given that mortgage rates are so low. Most rather not tie up that much cash in a non-liquid asset with very little return.
I would say 80% of the folks I see that can write a check for the a place, usually will just put the bare minimum down to get the most favorable mortgage terms.
The only exception I see to this is when the buyers are in their golden years and on a fixed income, but wealthy asset wise. Basically retiring. The borrowers in the mid 40s-late 50s who make these kind of purchases are usually still bringing in pretty hefty incomes.
I had a client looking for a $8 million mortgage. He had about $50 million liquid. The rate on the loan would have been in the 5’s at the time. He wanted a 80% LTV loan on the place.
Bob,
Your analysis is wrong in so many ways I will not even begin to respond or otherwise I may burn my banana bread, the smell of which is suggesting it is caramelizing nicely and just about done. You could easily take a hit and look great. When i moved to Chi town I got a small place kinda knowing I wouldn’t stay, I always felt short my permanent residence had I stayed. I could have lost 100% of my equity and felt up if the permanent place I would have bought came off even the same percent. The spread would have came in notionally.
Think about it. I was short the spread.
Yummm. cinnamon banana walnut bread…….
russ… clapping my hands.. he did the right thing. why the hell go and put equity into a house. All you are doing is increasing your personal risk. Only thing you are off on is “with very little return” with high return even BETTER to put down as little as possible. You are levering the positive side and basically buying a put at 20% on your downside. ROFLMAO!!! If you have the equity keep it far from where it can be seized or attached by gov’t or lawyers, or wife. My fear was always the lawyers. You can’t make yourself bulletproof so try and make yourself invisible!
Ze,
Lets assume two things that makes your analysis flawed for most people these days. 1) Zero down loans are not available anymore and 2) Most of your assets were tied up in the real estate downpayment (maybe not true in your case, true for most people).
See how things change?
Today zero down loans are non-existent and most Americans don’t have a substantial savings outside of their RE equity, many don’t even have that.
Doesn’t matter how “short” they are their house: they can’t go long on the upgrade unless they can bring a downpayment. That means at least 10% or 20% for the upper brackets*.
*Okay maybe down to 3.5% for loans under 410k, but in Chicagoland “upgrade residences” are typically above this.
Your view only holds for those with assets or equity that still has held up its value. As I stated above most with significant equity in their homes are not the upgrade type. The people who bought condos in 2004 are not even close to this population segment.
As far as hiding money from Uncle Sam–ask the UBS peeps how that worked out for them. In these tough times its only the beginning.
“How much money would he have lost if he took that money and put it in the stock market and rented instead?”
Sonies- the answer would be none.
I looked this up but unfortunately the calculator I use only goes through the end of February (so before the recent rally.)
I used June 1, 2006 as the starting date and reinvested all dividends and invested in the S&P 500 index.
The investor would have been down 12.8% by February 28, 2009. Given the recent rally of the S&P since then, I would say this investor is looking at quite a nice gain.
You forget about dividends and the power of compounding over 3 years. The recent equity rally has also been quite powerful.
Someone would have been far better off in the stock market over this time period than real estate.
Bob.. No it changes nothing. Your arguments are assumptive. I am stating only one simple FACT. whether or not it applies is not my point. YOU ARE SHORT THE SPREAD!!!
Mathematically deconstruct only that part and prove it to be wrong.
As for Sabrinas point this is why you always ONLY talk in risk free rate of return. All other arguments become assumptive. as in “well stock market if he had correct stocks… blah blah, nonsense”. circular garbage. all investments always assume other asset holding class at risk free to avoid having these arguments. These are immature and annoying and thats coming from someone who is very immature and quite often annoying himself. 🙂
“As far as hiding money from Uncle Sam–ask the UBS peeps how that worked out for them. In these tough times its only the beginning.”
Bob, couldn’t agree more. I remember a really big tax lawyer assuring me in 2001 that “putting money in a bank chartered to do business in the U.S. and not declaring that account on your taxes is going to one day soon be a disaster”
There is a big difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. And if you are going for evasion at least find a way to do it in damn cash!
The groove.. you threw a curse on Polamalu…
Take out the atrium glass roof and what do you have left? Another oversized loft with very little privacy. When walls on bedrooms do not go to the roof sound really travels. For 1M I would expect bedrooms that are legal bedrooms and are totally seperated from the living spaces.
The atrium glass while awesome in photo’s and great at sunset is a pain in the ass. Take your shades off of your western exposure oversized windows for an afternoon and see what happens. Now imagine the asme result multiplied by 20 during the hot mid day sun. The living area becomes useless for most of the day. You can not watch TV. The room will be quite warm. At night it would be really cool to look out and see the stars when there is a full moon. I knew of a home in K.C. KS that had a retractable roof in thier ballroom. It was truly insulated and awesome on a party night. In addition it was useful the rest of the year as well. I think that it was built in the 80’s – before the current NFL stadium trend. I imagine that it could turn into a maintenence nightmare but it was way more practical overall. I’m interested in what value the glass roof adds to this homes value?
Was this a developers unit purchased and paid for by cash by one of the partners with his/her profit from flipping this building? Just a thought.
Agree with JPH.
“The atrium glass while awesome in photos and great at sunset is a pain in the ass.”
“Was this a developers unit purchased and paid for by cash by one of the partners with his/her profit from flipping this building? Just a thought.”
Perhaps in 1990, but it’s been sold a couple times since then. But I think this building was converted before 1990.
“JPH on September 11th, 2009 at 6:00 am
At night it would be really cool to look out and see the stars when there is a full moon.”
Stars??? In Chicago??? LOL!
I would think our light pollution would prevent that.
ZE,
“The groove.. you threw a curse on Polamalu”, right after i hit submit he went down 🙁
JPH,
“Now imagine the same result multiplied by 20 during the hot mid day sun.”
Yeah but there are many ways around that most being costly and maybe the current owner has those in place. i hope that a million plus place would have thought of that or corrected it soon after.
i still say Sweeeeeeeeeet place, one of those even if it was priced at 2 million would sell to a buyer looking for unique and authentic urban livin
Crete, some on this blog may consider me rich. But from my perspective I am not even close……… My parents are very middleclass. What money I have was made from hard work and investing. I have family, friends and business associates who are ultra high net worth individuals. My points are not to impress but to counter some commentary. So much that is written on this blog comes from a very narrow perspective.
valasko, with all due respect, your position in life as an ultra high net worth individual puts you in a very narrow perspective; much more narrow than the rest of us middle class working folks here.
HD, I am NOT a ultra high net worth individual! Very fare from it, just deal with a few. Based on many of the comments on this blog my guess is that most are right out of college with student loans in a entry level position. Not representing the full range of the population. If you want to settle for middle class thats fine. Let’s drop the issue,as I am heading out of town – Have a good weekend.
Please take my advice and focus more on investing than this housing crisis. Your renting and savings plan is good, focus on how you will grow that money………
” looked this up but unfortunately the calculator I use only goes through the end of February (so before the recent rally.)
I used June 1, 2006 as the starting date and reinvested all dividends and invested in the S&P 500 index.
The investor would have been down 12.8% by February 28, 2009. Given the recent rally of the S&P since then, I would say this investor is looking at quite a nice gain.
You forget about dividends and the power of compounding over 3 years. The recent equity rally has also been quite powerful.
Someone would have been far better off in the stock market over this time period than real estate.”
Sabrina – you missed the part about where I said “AND rented” so you need to take into account whatever rent costs for a million dollar property and subtract that from your rate of return.
$4k a month for 39 months is $144k!
“I said “AND rented” so you need to take into account whatever rent costs for a million dollar property and subtract that from your rate of return.”
And add back in the property taxes (net of tax deduction, further net of loss of std. deduction) and assessments and maintenance costs. We do this everytime–>no one ever accounts for every single cost/benefit of the calculation on the first estimate.
Good idea anon, forgot about that!
Unique space, but dated looking. The style of this place — and this neighborhood– seems geared to a very small group of people—chiefly, a single Chicago Board of Trade/ Mercantile Exchange Trader.
Personally, I think the 550 West Wellington unit— for $1 million–previously talked about here is far superior both in interior space/appointments, price, and neighborhood. 550 West Wellington is a much better representation of a true penthouse (for Chicago, anyway).
I’m really proud of everyone for not robotically pointing out the high assessments as everyone is always so eager to do. They’re right inline with the per square foot assessment cost for these buildings and a lot of the original Chicago lofts.
Is offsite parking mentioned at all? This building has no parking of its own.
“I’m really proud of everyone for not robotically pointing out the high assessments as everyone is always so eager to do”
Because its not a soulless, cookie cutter unit, which most lofts absolutely are.
Most loft floorplans are only “unique” in the sense that maybe its the only floorplan like that on any particular floor. Their neighbor above or below them often has the same exact floorplan. I laugh at idiots that pay 300-550k for those type of lofts.