We Love Penthouses with Private Terraces: A 3-Bedroom at 60 W. Erie in River North
This 3-bedroom penthouse in 60 W. Erie in River North just came on the market.
This is a boutique building that was designed by Lucien Lagrange and has only 24 units and garage parking.
It was constructed in 2003-2004.
This penthouse has unobstructed 240-degree city views from both a private top floor terrace and other balconies.
The unit has a double tray ceiling, an antique Italian stone fireplace and 10 inch custom crown molding.
The listing says the floors range from Brazilian walnut hardwood, French limestone, granite and marble.
Do you hate cold feet in the kitchen in the morning?
It has heated kitchen floors as well as white Ultracraft cabinets, quartzite countertops, and luxury appliances including Subzero refrigerator, Viking stove, Miele dishwasher and microwave.
There’s also a master suite with a walk-in closet. The master bath has heated floors.
The other two bedrooms are en suite.
This is an unusual duplex in that there is no internal staircase. You have to take the elevator, from the private elevator vestibule.
The second floor has a sunroom, a powder room and a wet bar along with the 40×14 private south facing terrace.
The square footage listed provides the main floor at 3300 square feet with the second floor at 429 square feet, with most of it being the terrace, for a total of 3,729 square feet.
The listing says the unit is in the Ogden Elementary school district.
It has central air, washer/dryer in the unit and comes with a coveted 3-parking spaces.
Despite its size, this is a doorman building and also has an exercise room.
In a year with penthouses starting over $3 million, is this a rare “affordable” River North high rise penthouse?
Bruce Glazer and Nicole Betti have the listing. See the pictures and the interesting floor plan here.
Unit #PH: 3 bedrooms, 3 full baths, 2 half baths, 3,729 square feet
- Sold in March 2004 for $1.975 million (included 2 parking spaces)- I’m not sure where Redfin gets the 2009 sale as the CCRD doesn’t show it
- Currently listed for $2.25 million (includes 3 parking spaces)
- Assessments of $2,854 a month (includes gas, doorman, exercise room, exterior maintenance, scavenger, snow removal
- Taxes of $29,824
- Central Air
- Washer/dryer in the unit
- Fireplace
- Bedroom #1: 16×11 (main level)
- Bedroom #2: 12×12 (main level)
- Bedroom #3: 12×12 (main level)
- Laundry room: 8×8 (main level)
- Kitchen: 21×15
- Sunroom: 14×11 (second level)
- Terrace: 39×12 (second level)
IM MOVIN ON UP WITH GEORGE AND WEEZY!!!!
SELL ME THAT PENTHOUSE VIEW LOLZ!
GO CUBBIES!
wow…the Seller’s taste of furnishings does not mesh with the modern condo. Hopefully the Seller moves to a more vintage place. lol
No way this is a legit square footage number. Some of the rooms are a bit narrow, but nice place overall and the mostly transitional furniture looks fine to me,
Seems under whelming for the money. Like the 3 parking spaces though!
“Wow the sellers taste in furnishings doesn’t match the modern condo…”
I don’t think the inside and outside has to match at all. Buying vintage kind of sucks. Even just going back to the 70’s, the plumbing is old, the bathrooms are small, the wiring sucks, not much handicapped access…if you want a vintage building, fine, but don’t buy one to match your vintage furniture.
The square footage on this is correct. I lived in this building. The ongoing costs of running this building are huge. Because it was being built as the condo market in the city was crashing, the developer cut corners on many of the original plan. Much of this is only apparent after you have bought into the place. The entire building runs on electricity, which costs a fortune and sucks up so much of the HOA cost the reserves are never enough to keep common areas up to date, and the halls looked like those in a seedy old hotel when I lived there, but there was no money for even new wallpaper and carpet for the tiny halls. The entire back of the building was never insulated, so my bathroom, albeit huge and beautiful, was arctic cold in the winter and sweltering in the summer. My electric bills during the summer and winter for a 1 bedroom unit was $500/month, not included in the already high HOA. Many “sunbird” owners who were never around, so did not pay attention to the fact that condo board ran the building to benefit only themselves. Management was pathetic. They wasted our money hiring the most expensive services. They had so many bad reviews on Yelp it was like a joke, but even when this was pointed out, the board refused to get rid of them until there was a near coup in the building. I got out just before a huge special assessment was levied. Having said all that, a recent thread on Crib chatter reveals that this kind of problem is not unique to this building. Having lived in many condo buildings in Chicago, I realize that ending up in a well-run well-constructed building is largely a matter of luck. It’s very hard to tell beforehand, superficial looks are not always reliable, and condo boards make sure the revealing stuff never make it into the minutes of their meetings. I live in a building now that is of similar age and quality as 60 W Erie and in same neighborhood. I have the same square footage, but the HOA is almost half the amount, includes way more amenities, the reserves are way higher. I estimate my savings per year compared to if I had stayed at 60 W Erie is over $10,000/year, and this is for a one-bedroom unit, so you can imagine what it is for larger units. That’s not even counting the special assessment I just missed having to pay. I don’t exactly know how one building could run at such a lower cost than another one similar one. The only thing I notice is that, in my building now, there are big turnouts at all the condo board meetings, the board is made up of owners who clearly spend a lot of time scrutinizing everything, and the building engineer is obsessed with running a tight ship. I wouldn’t mind if they were a bit less conservative about spending money for updates more frequently, but it prides itself on never having had a special assessment and frankly, given my experiences of buildings that spent money like it was water, and others that didn’t want to spend anything to keep up the property, I can’t complain. But seeing the high HOAs of most high-rises in the GZ, it seems like my current building is the exception rather than the rule.
“I live in a building now that is of similar age and quality as 60 W Erie and in same neighborhood. I have the same square footage, but the HOA is almost half the amount, includes way more amenities, the reserves are way higher.”
I’m assuming that you moved to a much bigger building, right?
Assessments are always higher for buildings with doormen and few units. Just do the math. If you have a staff of 6 doormen (some would have more), you’re paying a whole lot of salaries for just 24 units.
If you want lower assessments, don’t live in a boutique building with a doorman or a pool and less than 50 units.
Also, the more amenities, the more you’ll pay. Tennis courts, basketball court, indoor or outdoor pool, rooftop barbecue, mail receiving room, sauna, party room, state of the art exercise room etc. etc. These all cost enormous amounts of money to maintain, keep clean etc. The building will definitely need full time maintenance.
Nothing comes for free!
“I’m assuming that you moved to a much bigger building, right?”
Yes, I realize that is a factor. But only partially. The highest assessments are usually in those huge old vintage buildings, and sheer number of units doesn’t seem to help them in that regard. Besides, I have lived in a building with the same number of units as my current building (again, same neighborhood, age and quality) and the HOA was around 65% more for comparative units to mine. (I moved from that building over 6 years ago, so I assume the HOA is even higher now.)
Back to comparing my building now with 60 W Erie, it’s true total square footage of the units in my building now is twice that of 60 W Erie, but on the other hand, there are two doormen on duty at all times rather than one, there is an onsite manager, which 60 W Erie does not have, there are a number of amenities that 60 W Erie does not have (actually, 60 W Erie has no amenities other than a very small workout room), and we have fully landscaped grounds that cover an entire city block, whereas 60 W Erie has a little row of hedges in front of their building. My HOA also covers heat and A/C and high speed internet and premium cable package. The only thing 60 W Erie covered was gas, and the whole building is electric.
So I would say all those factors should offset the difference in building size, and does not account for discrepancy in HOA dues. Just as a general observation, I have noticed in the last 10 years or so that buyers have wised up to the fact that when you buy in a condo, the purchase price is only one factor among three (HOA and Property Tax being other two) in determining the true “cost” of a unit, and condos are priced accordingly.
Some of those old co-ops and buildings like the Churchhill are astounding bargains if you only take the purchase price into consideration. But every $100/month in HOA dues you pay is equal to interest payment for an additional $55.000 in mortgage (if you are paying 3% interest and can tax deduct 25% of it). In other words, all else being equal, a unit you buy for $500,000 with HOA dues of $800/month will cost you exactly the same as a unit you buy for $555,000 with HOA dues of $700/month.
But people are still careless about other hidden costs, such as the high electric bills for building that have electric heat. As I wrote earlier, my electric bills during the summer and winter in 60 W Erie was $500/months. In my current building, my electric bills are around $40/month. This difference (assuming 7 months of long Chicago cold period and hot summers) is $3,220/year. Add to that the cable/internet bill of $75/month I had to pay at 60 W Erie that I pay zero for now, and the difference becomes $4,120/year. If I translate that amount to interest payment (after taxes) on a mortgage, it would be the same as my housing cost on a place costing $185,000 more in purchase price.
My HOA dues at 60 W Erie on a 1,150 sf one-bedroom unit was $750/month a few years ago. My HOA dues at my current 1,170 sf one-bedroom unit is $450/month. If you add that extra expense to the difference in the utilities costs I laid out above, it becomes equivalent to mortgage payments (after taxes) on $350,000.
But of course, my current unit is not valued at $350,000 more than the unit I owned at 60 W Erie! Their market values are, in fact, around the same now. When potential buyers go through internet search engines, they will glance briefly at the prices and only go through the nitty-gritties of comparing the “true” cost at a much later point of high interest in a property- if at all. In my opinion, it is a real estate agent’s fundamental duty to educate his clients on how to calculate the true cost of a condo and impress on them the points I laid out here.
“I have noticed in the last 10 years or so that buyers have wised up to the fact that when you buy in a condo, the purchase price is only one factor among three (HOA and Property Tax being other two) in determining the true “cost” of a unit, and condos are priced accordingly.”
Sure- this is true.
But you haven’t said anything about reserves. Is your new building $450 a month because there is absolutely no reserves? Otherwise, I don’t see how a nearly 1200 square foot unit in a downtown high rise which includes cable (even if it’s a building package which is reduced) can pay for two doormen, a city block of outdoor landscaping maintenance, a full time manager and other amenities on $450 a month.
A basic 1170 square foot condo in an 8 unit building would likely have an assessment of at least $300 and that wouldn’t include cable. In a full amenity building, it’s at least $500 but most likely $600-$750 a month (depending on if a/c or heat is included.)
There’s reasons to worry if the assessments are really high but there’s always reasons to worry if they’re too low.
A well run association is one with reserves and one which hasn’t done a special assessment. There are only a few high rises, that I know of, that qualify under those two rules.
The reserves in my building is around a million dollars. We just finished redecorating the entire lobby floor and last year, did extensive landscaping including installing pavers on our huge courtyard driveway. There has never been a special assessment since it was built in 1999. I just looked up the annual report from when I lived at 60 W Erie and their reserves were around $133,000 in 2011. They had a special assessment for a large building facade project in 2014 to raise a total of around $500,000 for the work.
Sabrina – FYI, I bought the one-bedroom unit next to mine last year as investment property with the possible plan of combining it with mine in a few years. It is the same size as mine – about 1,150 sf. But because it did not come with a parking space, and has no balcony, the HOA is even lower than that for my unit- $365/month. If I do end up combining the two units, I will have a 2,300 sf unit with a combined HOA of about $830/month with everything included other than the small electric bill. Meanwhile, I’m renting out the unit for $2,500/month. Since I paid cash for the place, my running cost is only the HOA and the property tax – around $750/month total.
I understand my building is out of the norm. I mentioned this earlier. But there is no reason other buildings can’t run on less expense if they didn’t have management companies and condo boards that squander money on overpriced work people. People are regularly hired that charge many times what workmen you would hire on your own would charge. In one building I was in, they spent $3,000 on a small wallpapering job in the lobby that I got a quote of $500 from a guy who had done wallpapering for me. I offered to give the contact info for my guy to the board who thanked me and instructed me to give the info to the manager. She never called him, but just hired the $3,000 guy instead!
In that building of nearly 100 units, only 2 to 3 owners ever showed up at the board meetings. In my building now (similar size) around 30 people show up for each meeting. I notice that in buildings with younger owners and high turnover rate, owner apathy is way worse. When owners do not keep a close watch on what their board is doing, they don’t have the information to know what kind of a job they are doing, and to vote out the incompetent or corrupt ones. Unfortunately, this situation is so common that it makes a building with reasonable HOA dues like mine look “abnormal”. I have lived in 8 different condo buildings in Chicago in the last 35 years – all located in the Near North area. Out of the 8, only 2 were run well – they both had superb boards and involved owners that watched the management company like hawks. The result was low assessments, high reserves, and a well-maintained building.
“I understand my building is out of the norm. I mentioned this earlier. But there is no reason other buildings can’t run on less expense if they didn’t have management companies and condo boards that squander money on overpriced work people.”
Sorry Vissi. I don’t believe you.
I’ve covered virtually every building that’s downtown on this blog. I’ve never seen a 100 unit building with all the amenities including 2 doormen and cable is included have assessments of just $350 a month for a unit over 1000 square feet.
And that you say your building is “abnormal” tells you all you need to know.
Something isn’t right.
Or else every building in the Gold Coast where the average age of the owner is 60 (which is most of the buildings) would be doing exactly what your building is doing to keep those assessments as low as possible. They will forego repairs in order to keep those assessments as low as possible. They’re all on fixed income! They can’t afford it.
Actually, I would also disagree with what you say about having young people in the building. I’d much rather have young people than anyone over 60 who is on fixed income and doesn’t want to fix anything because they’ll be dead by the time the problems start to happen.
Sabrina – If you have a private email address you can share, I would be more than happy to send you a copy of my assessment bill and exact address and unit number of the units I reference so you can verify all the info I gave here is correct! I will also send you pics. I am, in fact, desirous of having you see this so you can confirm this on this forum and let others realize how most condo buildings are grossly mismanaged.
Condo management companies in Chicago are largely like little versions of Chicago’s local government: inefficient, inept and corrupt. Run more for the benefit of themselves than their constituents.
I can’t even believe you don’t realize this Sabrina.
Eventually, most condo boards are made up exclusively of long-term owners. I have to agree with the comment “run more for the benefit of themselves”.
Most condo board decisions seem to be for the benefit of long-term owners. Very little seems to be done for the benefit of owners selling their units. Even less seems to be done for the benefit of future or recent owners (the buyers of those units that are/were for sale).
That’s been my observation of condo boards.
“Most condo board decisions seem to be for the benefit of long-term owners”
Well, to the extent that the interests of long-term owners clash with the interests of owners planning to sell soon, I think it is usually good for building for the condo boards to have long-term owners on them. Think of some expensive project needed to maintain the building in sound condition for a long period of time, but is not necessary right away, or is readily apparent to prospective buyers. What owner planning to live in the building for only a couple of years would be in favor of a special assessment for this? You get enough “transient” members on the board, and things just get kicked down the road. I lived in one building where the entire plumbing infrastructure of the building was a ticking bomb, but every year, the board had heated debates on when to tackle it, and every year, they postponed it because there were enough board members who thought they would sell soon and pass the problem (and expense) onto the next owners.
When boards discuss matters like this, they are also smart enough to talk only in hypotheticals and never couch it in terms of planning a definite project. If they do, they also make a point of doing it “off record” and not have it written down in the minutes. Because if there are plans for a special assessment, this fact legally has to be made known to prospective buyers, and most lawyers for buyers ask for board minutes from the previous two years, just for this reason.
Ironically, long-term owners on the board sometimes OPPOSE spending money on the building when it comes to cosmetic improvements that would aid owners selling their units. This seems short-sighted to me, because even if someone is not selling their unit soon, you would think they would want to enhance aspects of their building for units to sell for as high price as possible, as it would bolster the worth of their own units. in such cases, I think people who have been living in a place for a long time just get used to the tired outdated look, and do not realize what a turn-off it is to buyers.
Another thing I also agree that condo boards favor long-term owners for is that there is usually no hesitation about slapping on move-in move-out fees, not just enough to take care of wear and tear in the process, but to generate revenue for the building. I also think it is outrageous that most management companies now charge hefty fees to owners for filling out forms that are needed for the selling process. Isn’t it part of the process of managing a building, providing needed documentation and forms for the owners?
“Because if there are plans for a special assessment, this fact legally has to be made known to prospective buyers, and most lawyers for buyers ask for board minutes from the previous two years, just for this reason.”
It’s not the lawyers. It’s the banks. In order to get a mortgage, the banks want to know what is happening inside the building including any litigation, specials etc.
And they should be asking for this.
You can only keep upcoming problems out of the minutes for so long, especially in a larger building. In a 6 or 8 unit building, sure. But in a building with 100+ units, the condo board meetings are usually pretty extensive. And, in my experience, those in the downtown buildings are usually not going to sell and move. They’re in it for the long haul, especially the retirees and empty nesters, many of whom now make up the buyers of many of the downtown high rise condos (i.e. the Baby Boomers.)
They’re only going to sell after they’re dead.
If you live in a “younger” building with Millennials or GenXers in Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Uptown, the South Loop, then you probably will have more turnover and a bigger reluctance to invest.
Move into buildings with Boomers. Ha!
Of course, then you have the issue of some of them being on a limited income which could inhibit rising assessments.
One thing most condo owners should be aware of, if you buy in any older building (i.e. one that is 25+ years) then the parking garages will become an issue.
The John Hancock just did extensive repairs on its parking structure, which is owned separately from the condos. This is a million dollar project. The same will be true of all the high rises that were built in the 1970s, 80s and even the 90s. The concrete structures simply cannot take all the salt build-up over the years. It weakens the concrete eventually.
“Sabrina – If you have a private email address you can share, I would be more than happy to send you a copy of my assessment bill and exact address and unit number of the units I reference so you can verify all the info I gave here is correct!”
My private e-mail has been on this site for 10 years. You can use that.
cribchatter@yahoo.com
“My private e-mail has been on this site for 10 years. You can use that.”
Yes. I figured that out and emailed you a bunch of stuff the other day
Closed for 2.175
Interesting, closed again for 1.570
“Interesting, closed again for 1.570”
Corporate relo?
It’s been a long time since those were popular but usually when I see a property sell quickly twice in a row, it’s a corporate relocation sale.