We Love Big Patios: Townhouse Back on the Market and Reduced at 1616 N. Larrabee
Forget about the 12×12 patch of land you usually get with most townhouses.
We chattered before about this 2-bedroom townhouse at 1616 N. Larrabee in Old Town which doesn’t have just one patio, but it has two outdoor spaces.
It has also been reduced by $51,000 from its original listing last September.
See our prior chatter here and more pictures here.
This 2-story townhouse is fee simple and has no assessments. It also has a one-car garage. It was originally a 3-bedroom townhouse but the listing says it was converted to 2-bedrooms to make a larger master bedroom.
Does the outdoor space (and reduced price) sway you?
Eileen Brennan at Prudential Preferred still has the listing. See more pictures here.
1616 N. Larrabee: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1500 square feet
- Sold in June 1992 for $240,000
- Sold in October 1999 for $378,000
- Sold in April 2004 for $505,000
- Originally listed in September 2008 for $649,000
- Reduced several times
- Was listed in February 2009 at $609,000
- Reduced
- Currently listed at $598,000
- No assessment
- Taxes of $7,360
- 900 square foot patio
- 1 car garage
- Central Air
Oooh, I hope I am first and can steal the thunder from the normal crowd – “This is overpriced. I think $300 sounds about right”. Did I get it?
The 2004 price looks right. They’ll be lucky to get that after factoring in the agent/transaction costs
Chicagoland is back to late 2002/early 2003 pricing. I’m thinking 460k. Given they got rid of the nearby Cabrini highrises let me bump it up to 500k.
It would sell pretty quickly at $300k. Right now it’s death by thousand cuts.
I like this place a lot. $600,000 seems about right to me. Maybe it’s just me, but I would much prefer a townhouse to a condo.
“It would sell pretty quickly at $300k.”
C’mon. *I’d* buy it at $300k. And I don’t want a 2d house.
Besides, if you aren’t a forced seller, you can’t bid against yourself to that degree (going to $300k, or even $500k right away). That said, $609k was a stupid, stupid price point, given the price limits in most (all?) RE websites. The potential (and, obviously unrealized) extra $10k isn’t worth excluding yourself from the “under $600k” searches. Maybe $599k in Feb doesn’t get them any nibbles, but it would have been better, w/o question.
Also killing them, imo? 2 BRs. What’s the market for 2BR THs, v. 3 BR? Has to be much, much smaller, no?
I think the curb appeal is killing this place. It has none…dated architecture is a kiss of death, especially at this price point.
Really nice indoor and outdoor space, but I would just hate driving up to that place everyday. Each to their own…
Unrelatedly, did anyone look at the CS Condo Index?
Chicago, down 3.03% MtM, 11.11% YoY, and 14.37% from 9-07 peak. Back to 3-04 pricing. Biggest MtM drop of the 5 markets tracked.
LA is 33.84% off 7-06 peak, back under 1-04 pricing.
SF is 28.41% off 10-05 peak, back to 1-04 pricing.
Boston is 15.87% off 10-05 peak, back to 9-03 pricing.
NYC is 9.35% off 2-06 peak, back to 6-05 pricing.
If Chicago were to hit LA’s 33.84% off peak, it would put Chicago at 5-00 pricing, at about 106 on the CS Index.
Is that because of the Vetro brining prices back into reality? How is the condo index calculated? Just curious.
“How is the condo index calculated?”
As best as I can tell, same as the regular CS index–that is, using paired sales and thus excluding new construction. So the Vetro has nothing to do with it. Also, in any event, did Vetro auction sales actually close in February (lastest CS month)?
Is there a CS index for just Chicago city proper? The “Chicago” CS index includes Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL Metropolitan Division, which includes all of the following counties: Cook IL, DeKalb IL, Du Page IL, Grundy IL, Kane IL, Kendal IL, McHenry IL, and Will IL.
So since its not including ANY new construction, how is that a reliable number? Couldn’t they comp new construction sales and subtract the 10% premium typically paid for new construction or something?
anon – do you see us going that far down? i don’t. i we didn’t rise as much as LA so i don’t think we’ll go down as much either.
i agree this unit lacks curb appeal – but it’s got a bit of an urban sancturay feel once you’re inside.
“Couldn’t they comp new construction sales and subtract the 10% premium typically paid for new construction or something?”
How would that be reliable? Besides, re-sales of comparable units *should* be at similar prices to the new units, else the buyer of the new unit has overpaid.
“Is there a CS index for just Chicago city proper?”
No. None of the CS indexes are just the city. And, remember, the headline CS index is **only** single-family homes. The weird thing about Chicago, for CS purposes, the metro area *excludes* Lake County (as someone here pointed out to me a while back).
You’re right…that is odd…I didn’t notice that Lake wasn’t included with all those other counties.
Most areas of the country are retreating to pre-bubble i.e. 1999 pricing (Real not nominal). Phoenix and Detriot are already there leading the pack; And before you say “but it’s different here!” As of last month Illinois is number 5 in foreclosures, right behind AZ, FL, NV and CA…..four years ago everybody said prices only go up; three years ago we were at a permanent plateau; two years ago they said slight declines for a soft landing; one year ago they said OK the fringes will be affected but the good areas will retain their value; today we’re saying “we cannot drop as much as LA”; who knows what prognostications tomorrow will bring? Don’t say I didn’t warn you when two years from now the Chicago CS condo index is at 106….
“#bubbleboi on April 29th, 2009 at 11:34 am
anon – do you see us going that far down? i don’t. i we didn’t rise as much as LA so i don’t think we’ll go down as much either.”
and sinking lower…
Sorry I meant nominal pricing not real pricing; i’m getting a little ahead of myself here!
“anon – do you see us going that far down? i don’t. i we didn’t rise as much as LA so i don’t think we’ll go down as much either.”
Not necessarily. I was using it as a marker of “if it’s as bad as it already is elsewhere”. Chicago also had the least growth in condo prices b/t 1-95 and 1-00–index was 79.13 in 1-95, for total increase from 1-95 (or later) bottom to peak of “just” 103%, less than *half* the other 4:
Boston up 215%, from 4-95 to 10-05
NYC up 216%, from 4-95 to 2-06
SF up 250%, from 3-96 to 10-05
LA up 304%(!!), from 3-97 to 7-06
SF and Boston condo price increases since 1-00 are now w/in 10% of Chicago’s–but both were much, much lower (relatively) sometime after 1-95–for them to get in line with Chiacgo on *overall* increases, Boston would need to return to 4-00 prices and SF to 1-00 prices.
how this all shows up in CS sort of depends on how the Index deals with the (inevitable) flipper units sold at a loss before or after foreclosure. The methodolgy states that they attempt to discount non-standard transactions in their calculation, but I have no idea how (nor will anyone here who isn’t violating a confi).
I see no reason why Chicagoland cannot bottom at nominal levels pre-2000. I don’t expect this will happen quickly as I think we will find temporary bottoms during the summer months. But due to demographic shifts combined with the bubble I see no reason why it can’t deflate substantially and drop below 100, possibly even down to mid-80s.
I doubt we’ll ever see drops as big as the 4.5% or 3.5% month over month declines we’ve seen the past two months, but it could indeed be “death by a thousand cuts” after this summer with a quarter or half percent shaved off here and there until we hit bottom in a few years time.
“possibly even down to mid-80s”
Mid-80s on the CS Condo Index would be Summer ’97 pricing for Chicago.
Summer 98 for LA and NY.
Winter 98/99 in Boston.
And April 99 in SF (yes, SF Condos went up 16%+ in 8 months in 1999).
In the mid 80’s you could buy a brand new luxury car for like 20k… I doubt things get that bad.
I don’t see us declining as far as LA.
Then again, LA ain’t stopping at 33.84% off.
Look at comrade dr housing bubble’s ‘real homes of genius’ for examples of the outright ponzi scheme that was LA.
Not mid 1980s levels but as anon(tfo) pointed out, summer of 1997 levels. I don’t think we will reach the bottom quickly however and the month to month declines of over 1.5% are probably going to be over after this winter. No way will we continue to drop at 3.5-4.5% per month, its just not feasible for long.
“Then again, LA ain’t stopping at 33.84% off.”
For LA to get to Chicago’s Feb-09 index number, it would be 52% off peak.
Chicago at 52% off peak would be 77–below the level of 1-95. LA’s bubble was much, much, much worse than here.
Yeah I wish I could find that WSJ article with the price of home / income ratio average… out in california the AVERAGE was 17x income, so someone who made 50k a year was living (on average) in a $850k house! Here in chicago at the peak it was I think 6.5x income, which while rediculous, is still not as bad or anywhere close to Cali.
“so someone who made 50k a year was living (on average) in a $850k house!”
It wasn’t really quite that bad.
They were living in $350k house with a $850k mortgage on it. And the city, county and school district budgeted as if they would receive $8500 in taxes on it, which is what’s really screwing the CA govt.
There was a tremendous amount of fraud built into the LA ponzi scheme where homes in Compton sold for 400k.
Just like the 1930’s the prolific prognostications!
“Lewis Ranieri Says Housing Is ‘Shouting Distance’ From Bottom
By Eric Martin
April 29 (Bloomberg) — Lewis Ranieri, a mortgage-bond pioneer and former Salomon Brothers vice chairman, said the slump in U.S. home prices is almost over and that he’s “enthusiastic” about housing for the first time in five years.
“I’m actually very enthusiastic about housing, and I haven’t said that in five years,’’ Ranieri said, speaking on a panel at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California. “We’re within shouting distance of a bottom.”
Whatever happened to ol’ Louie’s former banks, anyway?
Oh yeah I think Salomon was consumed by Smith Barney, and later Citigroup. But ol’ Louie went on to have a career in banking after Salomon…what was it..Franklin Bank? Good to know his business dealings are remarkably consistent in costing the taxpayers billions at some point in the future.
http://news.muckety.com/2008/11/11/the-housing-crisis-claims-an-icon-lewis-ranieri/6501
He must be able to shout REALLY loud.
Speaking at the Milken institute too!
Here is excerpt from an interview with Roubini in Monday’s Washington post:
“I don’t believe we are going to end up in a near-depression. Six months ago I was more worried about an L-shaped near-depression. Today, after the very aggressive policy actions taken by the U.S. and other countries . . . we are, instead, in the middle of a U.”
Yuck.
umm, in this ‘hood, I need a doorman, sorry. it also doesn’t look like the last purchaser in 2004 put any money in to this place…the interior looks dated…yet they think they have the one place in Chicago that should make them money under those circumstances…lol
Southern Cali dropped 20% during the mid-90s, so I don’t think “everybody” was saying that…
homedelete on April 29th, 2009 at 11:43 am
“four years ago everybody said prices only go up”
There are a few of these for sale right now, this one is the most expensive. 1606 is 579k and has better finishes, although might be a bit smaller, hard to tell, it’s closer to North Ave. 1602 is also for sale for 539k and is a 3 bedroom, although it’s on the corner of Larrabee and North Ave. 1646 is under contract and was listed at 529k.
There are also other townhomes on the other side of Larrabee for sale north of 600k as well.
I totally thought the “front” was the back! Everyone kept saying it has no curb appeal, etc… and i was like – where is the frontal pic?? That’s really a strange architectural decision for the front of a house (those 2 garages are the front right??)
The decision to have the garage, not the townhouse, fronting Larrabee was due to the surrounding neighborhood when this thing was built. With Cabrini just down the street, no real street life to speak of and high crime rates, building your house like a fortress makes some sense.
That said, this isn’t 1985 anymore (or 1995, for that matter). The decision to build in such a manner (and the decision to buy to property) shows a real lack of foresight, imo. It is going to limit your buyer pool significantly (IMO more than, say, a lack of parking).
That said, a whole mess of people bought similarly “walled off” developments all over town over the last decade. Personally, I’d like my house fronting the curb…to each his own, i guess.
Mess: “I totally thought the “front” was the back! Everyone kept saying it has no curb appeal, etc… and i was like – where is the frontal pic?? That’s really a strange architectural decision for the front of a house (those 2 garages are the front right??)”
We actually made an offer on one of the others in that complex about this time last year. When it was rejected, we thought more about the street and decided we didn’t really want to live there.
I have mixed feelings about the walled-off effect. It’s a balance between what you project to the rest of the world versus what matters to you. On that street, I didn’t see any great incentive to sit or even look out of the street-facing spaces. On the other hand, the walled-off patios were very nice and private feeling and the interiors were, we thought, very nice in a mid-century modern style.
Last I looked, the one we offered on was still on the market, a year later, at the same price. I don’t think he was in any hurry to sell.