We Love Authentic Lofts: Brick and Timber at 1040 W. Adams in the West Loop
The No. 10 Lofts at 1040 W. Adams was among the last of the authentic loft conversions in the West Loop. Converted from a warehouse in 2006, the 259 units have exposed brick and timber ceilings.
This 2-bedroom unit is currently on the market. It has all the bells and whistles including central air, in-unit washer/dryer, stainless steel appliances and granite countertops.
Parking is also available for sale in the building.
Lori Wyatt at Dwell One Realty has the listing. See more pictures here.
Unit #269: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1300 square feet
- Sold in August 2006 for $369,000
- Originally listed in June 2009 for $395,000
- Reduced
- Currently listed for $384,900 (plus $25,000 for parking)
- Assessments of $495 a month
- Taxes of $4917
Lets see, 2/2 without parking in the west loop for 400k or 2/2 with parking in river north for 400k.
DECISIONS DECISIONS.
Why do they even bother listing these? Just another urbanite probably with no skin in the game hoping for a greater fool. I just hope their agent understands futility.
Maybe I’m just mean but I love seeing the ‘oh look at my oh so urban loft I’m so sophisticated and cool’ crowd take lumps because this place is about as practical as an italian sportscar.
This one needs to go back to the ’06 price with parking or lower and they may get some bites. It shows well, but there isn’t anything special about it relative to all the other inventory on the market. Typical 2/2. The kitchen appliances also don’t scream $400k condo imho.
However, I am wondering if the view is what is preventing this unit from selling. Typically, when the view is very bad or undesirable, the Realtors try to hide the bad view in the listing by only showing the chairs on the balcony as opposed to waht you actually can see from the balcony.
Or… Penthouse 2/2 for $350,000 (unit 464)- 2 car parking for $30K… I’d say neither actually.
What’s up with the hollywood lights? they should change that out
interesting point on the balcony pic, russ. and what are those tents in the background? i’m guessing circ d solei in the united center parking lot but who knows.
the satellite view seems to rule out my UC parking lot theory.
“what are those tents in the background?”
Cavalia, no? That’s about where I think it’s being staged–whatever parking lot that is.
“interesting point on the balcony pic, russ. and what are those tents in the background? i’m guessing circ d solei in the united center parking lot but who knows”
The tents are for the show Cavalia which is temporary. It is set up pretty much at Adams and Racine.
“However, I am wondering if the view is what is preventing this unit from selling.”
It’s on the second floor on Adams – that’s a pretty shite view.
If I wanted to live in this part of the West Loop I’d throw in a $260k offer to include parking and not think twice about it. I wonder what that counter-action would be. 30% off of the ’06 price (plus including parking). That’s a comfortable bottom price in my opinion.
I’m NOT suggesting at all that stuff within LP/LV/RN/GC and the heart of other solid neighborhoods should trade for 70% of the 2006 price.
“If I wanted to live in this part of the West Loop I’d throw in a $260k offer to include parking and not think twice about it. I wonder what that counter-action would be. ”
The counter action would be that they would probably laugh at you, or counter with an offer of 380k +25k for parking.
Rent a similar 2/2 on the 5th floor of the same building for $2,150.
http://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/apa/1327502423.html
Or buy this unit with parking at 20% down ($82,000) @ 5% interest, is $1,761 + taxes of $400 + $500 assessments = $2,661 per month.
If you want rental parity these owners need to chop 25% or about $100,000 off $410,000 asking price. OUCH.
That area is full of lofts like that. Maybe one day people will learn the danger of buying in an area where 200 other condos look just like yours. 380k is alot given the area is an over-developed concrete jungle that is entirely to close to the “hood” for comfort. I would rather take that money farther east and get a real neighborhood and not be so close to foot soldiers all wearing white T shirts and saggy pants. (Please save the racism rants, Im not talking color specific, thugs are thugs).
They can’t chop 100k because they’ve never saved, nor even probably seen 100k in their lives. They likely never will–remember how fiscally smart they must’ve been to pay 370k for this at the peak and are now expecting to sell three years later.
Real estate always goes up except when it doesn’t. Thats the lesson they’re going to learn. I wish I could find the 2006 seller and buy them a beer: taking advantage of unsophisticated wannabe urbanites I think should be worthy of not only outsized profits but also a civic commendation. 😀
Bob, I agree that they cannot chop $100k off. That’s the primary problem with the high end market. The homes need to sell for less but no one can afford the reduction. On the low end the underwater property goes into foreclosure and eventually sells for ‘market’. These owners won’t ever allow it to go into foreclosure, yet, at the same time, they’re stuck for an innumerable number of years to come. which means that the high end market is stuck for an innumerable number of years to come.
Where’s the baby crib in the pictures?
“means that the high end market is stuck for an innumerable number of years to come.”
No some will fall into short sales/foreclosure. Its just prospective buyers won’t have a plethora of choices.
I have noticed you can get 2/2s for 300k or even slightly less in South Loop if you aren’t _too picky_ I see no reason why this couldn’t happen in West Loop too.
And this owner need not sell anything: if they want to rent it out at a loss and subsidize a renter so be it. Call it a stupidity tax or, better yet, a wealth transfer from stupid to non-stupid.
‘ I wish I could find the 2006 seller and buy them a beer: taking advantage of unsophisticated wannabe urbanites I think should be worthy of not only outsized profits but also a civic commendation.’
The 2006 seller was the developer; but he’d appriciate a beer now as well since he may no longer be in business. I had a friend-of-a-friend who lived here. The units were very nice, especially the kitchen. This pic does not do full justice. However, I thought the price he paid (even back in 2006) was ridiculous. Plus with any timber loft, unless your on the top floor its just noise, noise, noise from above.
Anyone else annoyed by the listing discription.
“Chicago Home for Sale” in Great “West Loop” “- really, it a home for sale. Could not have guessed that.
“”1040 W ADAMS STREET” a great plc to call home! ” – thanks for giving me the address again, in case I forgot it.
Anyone else thinks that its weird that there is not a pic of the actual living room; just a shot of the dining table w/ the living room couch to the side. I wanted to see the ethanol fireplace.
anyone know if the 2006 price was pre-construction pricing?
so 385k for a 2/2 without parking in west loop…ummmm…ummmm…yeah i am busy at work today i will save my comments
While on the topic of above noise lets not forget about another awesome amenity of these lofts: the non full height ceilings!
I love it when I cook or attempt to how I can also simultaneously get the entire pad to smell like bacon grease or pizza or whatever ethnic dish I attempt to create.
Also I love how when having guests over or other people living in the household that I can hear the TV or radio from any room here, even if its on lower volume settings.
I dunno how they get away with calling these things ‘bedrooms’ because they’re not really rooms. Maybe bed-cubicle?
The $360k appears to have included the parking–deed showed two PINs.
Mortgage was for $334,200–>92.8%.
The proud owners of this unit also appear to have purchased Unit #371 (also w/ Parking)
PP of $305k; Mtg of $283,300–>also 92.8%.
Given the current inventory (15 units ACTIVE in this development) I tend to agree with the views on on this thread re: this being overpriced however the closest comps are the 4 closing in the past 3 months which have been:
#106 (1,500 sq ft) – $345,000
#260 (1,225) – $336,000
#342 (1,025) – $303,000
#410 (1,225) – $362,000
Assuming all of these had the separately deeded parking included then it comps this place at around $315-320k. Makes the LP looks stupid but also doubtful that a 2 handle on the price would be necessary to get this going in this federally supported end of the market.
I have read most of the on-going discussions about rent parity and whilst I academically understand why we should be closer to breakeven economics it seems unlikely that anything this generic would trade at a price that made it float unless you bght it at a foreclosure auction. Especially when most of my armchair investor friends (the employed ones) have started asking me if they should be buying an investment property now.
It may be a concrete jungle, but the thugs stay away. I have lived in this area for nine years and don’t recall ever seeing a member of the white t-shirt/baggy jeans club.
@lauren 380k is alot given the area is an over-developed concrete jungle that is entirely to close to the “hood” for comfort. I would rather take that money farther east and get a real neighborhood and not be so close to foot soldiers all wearing white T shirts and saggy pants. (Please save the racism rants, Im not talking color specific, thugs are thugs).
“That area is full of lofts like that. Maybe one day people will learn the danger of buying in an area where 200 other condos look just like yours. 380k is alot given the area is an over-developed concrete jungle that is entirely to close to the “hood” for comfort. I would rather take that money farther east and get a real neighborhood and not be so close to foot soldiers all wearing white T shirts and saggy pants.”
While I agree that 380k IS too much for these types of condos in that area, it is farther from the ‘hood than you would think. According to the wiser CC posters, that ‘baggy jeans action’ does not really start until Ashland. If you go East of here, you run into Emerald then the highway then Presidential Towers…now that is a ‘hood full of street urchins…no racial rants either, urchins are still urchins.
“Rent a similar 2/2 on the 5th floor of the same building for $2,150.
http://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/apa/1327502423.html
Or buy this unit with parking at 20% down ($82,000) @ 5% interest, is $1,761 + taxes of $400 + $500 assessments = $2,661 per month.
If you want rental parity these owners need to chop 25% or about $100,000 off $410,000 asking price. OUCH.
”
HD – you keep running these computations without taking into account asset transfer or tax deductibility.
I’ve been inside one of the units here, seemed nice enough, though the hallway is like a freaking maze the first time you go into the building.
They’re back of the envelope calculations. If it’s such a great deal to buy then why hasn’t it sold? It’s within conforming limits..
“HD – you keep running these computations without taking into account asset transfer or tax deductibility.”
I’ll address the tax issue in the following way.
1) The marginal buyer might be a speculator. You don’t get a mortgage deduction on investment property.
2) My gut based on behavioral economics/finance is that buyers don’t account for taxes in the calculation of housing costs. All they care about is the month cash hit.
3) It’s not that hard to figure out taxes. Take $1761 payment – assume 85% of it is interest (typical early in mortgage life) and multiply that by 25% for tax benefit (my assumption for a marginal tax rate)= $374. So my assumption is it doesn’t add up still.
And the tax deduction for the first $11,000 or so in interest of the roughly $18,000 in total interest is no greater than the standard deduction …
And the tax benefit is less than what people think most of the time because you don’t get to take the standard deduction anymore. A married couple paying $1000 a month interest doesn’t get to write off a $12,000 bonus at the end of the year. It’s really only an additional $3,000 write-off benefit because their standard deduction would have been $9,000 anyway.
I think the tax benefits of mortgages are grossly over rated.
Well, there you go, homedelete beat me to it.
The real tax benefit of RE is if you can actually have capital gains. I know that seems like a distant memory in this market. But how many “investments” allow you to take up to $250,000 in tax free profits. I’m sure many of you RE professionals have used that up, but that’s big tax free cashola for the average mom and pop.
“It’s not that hard to figure out taxes. Take $1761 payment – assume 85% of it is interest (typical early in mortgage life) and multiply that by 25% for tax benefit (my assumption for a marginal tax rate)= $374. So my assumption is it doesn’t add up still.”
Not that I think it “adds up”, but two things and then a third:
1. The other 15% (ie the principal payment) is an asset transfer, not an expense, if we’re being technical. So that’s $300/month, and goes up every month.
2. Real estate taxes are also deductible, so the tax benefit is $500 a month, which, combined w/ #1, makes it about $300 less per month to own than rent.
2A (the 3d thing)–the tax benefit isn’t nearly that large, as you have to forego the standard deduction to claim your mortgage interest and there is also the risk of AMT.
“If it’s such a great deal to buy then why hasn’t it sold?”
It’s an apartment. Only so many people actually *want* to own–rather than rent–an apartment. And I think we have, at present with current and near future supply and the state of the economy, more condos than people who really want to own them, unless ownership is *clearly* cheaper than renting. And, even those who want to own an apartment are spoiled for choice. But then you knew that.
Speaking of timber lofts…
Does anyone know if the 2 bd/2 bth penthouse loft at 655 W Jackson sold? I remember thinking that was a fairly priced unit compared to the glut of cookie cutter lofts in the area. I think it was offered at $350k including parking.
“1. The other 15% (ie the principal payment) is an asset transfer, not an expense, if we’re being technical. So that’s $300/month, and goes up every month.”
It’s not really an asset transfer if the asset is losing value every month. It’s more like flushing your money down the toilet. Or in nicer terms, it’s the repayment of a debt obligation but don’t consider it an asset transfer.
“It’s not really an asset transfer if the asset is losing value every month.”
That assumes that it will not regain it’s nominal pricing before the buyer sells. We ALL know where you stand on that. If you look at life as a monthly balance sheet, that’s your choice, but I think it sux to do that.
Maybe it’s a bad investment, but it’s still an investement expense, rather than a pure cost, like the interest, taxes and HOA. Or Rent, for that matter.
homedelete – I know you’re bearish on the housing market but you have to admit it is at least partially an asset transfer. The prices aren’t going to zero. Maybe close to it, but not zero.
AK,
That was 625 W Jackson Unit 808 I believe. It’s still on as a CTG @ $350k and had 1 parking space included.
Yes but it’s only an asset transfer if you have reasonable expectations that you will ever see this money again. If you’re underwater, like this sellers might be based on four most recent sales, it will be a long time before that nominal value returns. On the balance sheet it’s an asset transfer but in reality that money is gone. That’s why so many people just walk away when they’re underwater. IF they really believed they were transferring their cash to an asset they would stay.
That’s the unit. Thanks Neo.
Hey did you ever check out the HP mansion?
“it’s only an asset transfer if you have reasonable expectations that you will ever see this money again”
No, no it’s not. It’s still an asset transfer. They ARE transferring “cash” to “real property”; every dollar of loss is potential until realized.
Given the bank receives priority of equity in event of a sale its more like an asset transfer from person to black hole.
Yes their balance sheet is improving by the amount of the asset transfer each month regardless (assuming stable values). However its hard to ignore the walkaway option which would provide a substantial balance sheet boost immediately and diminishes each month (again assuming the value of the place doesn’t continue to fall/remains stable).
Past research has shown people don’t factor in the walkaway option as much as they economically ought to. But I think this research is limited and specific to the Boston area and the losses were much less than these days.
I really like the unit, but it is over priced. Really, really like the space.