Why We Love Chicago: 562 W. Arlington Place in Lincoln Park
We’ve been chattering about so much doom and gloom lately, how about just seeing some lovely properties?
562 W. Arlington is the quintessential Chicago home in East Lincoln Park. It’s the kind of house you walk by and wonder, “who lives there?” And compared to our competitor cities (NY, DC, SF), it’s downright affordable.
Unit #2: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, family room, 1 car parking, 1600 square feet
- Sold in August 2005 for $600,000
- Currently listed for $699,000
- Assessments of $200 a month
- Genesis Residential RE Inc. has the listing
BEAUTIFUL!!
It’s beautiful, and the price seems reasonable.
With all the negativity about the market around here, I have to agree — looks like a nice place at a decent price. Now where did I put that extra $400,000 I need to actually buy this?
Seriously, this looks like a fair deal.
Michael:
That was my objective. The Chicago real estate market isn’t just about flippers and foreclosures.
Is that a good price? Is that a good location? I’ve got the money but don’t know where to buy???
I can’t tell if this home was staged or if people actually live there and they just organized it nicely?
John–yes it’s a reasonable price (though in this market you might be able to talk them down a tiny bit), and it’s a terrific location. Lincoln Park is just north of downtown, quite safe, good schools, etc. It’s “old money.” And yes, it was obviously staged–why do you care about that? To me, the owners/agent of this place are a lesson to everyone else. (Linda, you listening?) I suspect this will be sold in a couple of months.
Kenworthey – Thanks for the info. The reason why I care if it was staged really has to do whether it is being actually lived in or not. If they aren’t living in it, they may be more motivated to accept a lower price since it isn’t being used for shelter. 1600 seems a tad small though.
John–good point. I’m going to go with ‘staged AND lived in.’ There are just a few too many things in there. It looks great, but would look even better if a few of those pieces of furniture were gone.
Well I guess someone has to disagree. That is a beautiful place, but it’s not worth $700,000.
I won’t be surprised if some catches this knife on the way down, but 2005 prices are too high, let alone 17% above 2005 prices.
I’m with you, Tipster. The responses here indicate why some prices will be very sticky on the way down.
But down they will go. Anyone who buys anywhere near 2005 prices will learn this all too well.
It is a buyer’s market (inventory wise) in a market where you can’t buy since a buyer can’t determine what the price really is without going back to 2001-2003 and sellers are there yet even with rising inventories. That is the boat I am in, in Florida I have know way of knowing what the price should be….in Chicago I have a good idea but too much uncertainty. I know I am not alone and others don’t want to catch a falling knife sooo inventories will just keep rising and rising.
John,
Yes, there is always a risk of buying in a market like this. This particular property doesn’t strike me as badly overpriced. I do think it is a bit high, but not crazily so (unlike downtown). And unlike downtown, Lincoln Park wasn’t nearly as overbuilt in the bubble years. Only time will tell. Tipster and G may be right. But if you were looking for a place to live for a long time (not trying to “make money”), I doubt you’d get hurt in a place like this.
On the other hand, I’ve pretty much categorically decided not to buy for another year, so maybe I’m being a hypocrite here. But look at the comps on this street–G and Tipster, do you really, really think prices will go below $600K this place?
This type of place? Yes. This one sold at peak bubble time for $600K, so they will go lower.
This specific unit? There are still knife-catchers out there. The NAR is still running ads that declare it “a great time to buy.” There are realtors out there seeking commissions that some buyers might indeed consider “trusted advisors.”
The rise in rates for jumbo loans, the return of their classification as “non-conforming” (with large down payment and income/asset verification), and the large increase of units in this price range during the bubble without a commensurate increase in income all will lead to price drops.
I guess I still believe in the lumpiness of the bubble–I have a hard time thinking that *everything* will categorically decline in price. This sold for $600K in 2005; it was extensively renovated, and now is asking for $700K. I’d like to know what it sold for before 2005. If it sold in, say, 2000 for $500K, then $600K wouldn’t be a bubble price, right? It would be reasonable appreciation.
I’m not trying to sound like the NAR here, but there is SOMETHING to be said for the idea that real estate is at least sometimes local. When I think of Chicago’s bubble, I think of downtown and its immediate environs (Streeterville, South Loop, River North, Gold Coast) with a frenzy of overbuilding purchased by speculators. I also think of the sketchier far-out neighborhoods (like Englewood, Rogers Park, Bronzeville, Humbolt Park) being inflated by lax and often fraudulent lending.
In contrast, areas like Lincoln Park and Hyde Park–stable, not particularly overbuilt–were certainly not immune from the bubble, but I do think that they weren’t as inflated. If they didn’t go up as much, they shouldn’t come down as much. Which is why I think a place like this–asking $700K on a street where virtually all of its neighbors are 1.5 million and above–as not an unreasonable price.
I guess we’ll see in five years.
I don’t think Lincoln Park was especially bubbly in 2006. I bought a similar place a couple of streets away from this unit in 1997 for $345,000 and sold in early 2006 for $520,000. That’s a little less than 5% annual appreciation – not bad, but nothing frothy.
This place looks like it has had lots of updates (the whole marble, granite, stainless-shtick), which ours didn’t, so I don’t think the $600k was a “bubble price”.
But the $699,000 is dreaming – in this market they should be happy to break even.
Kenworthy – Yes, everything will decline just as everything rose. Overall demand is a fraction of what it was and will never ever be that high again because of return of lending standards.
Not so sure it is a deal. It doesn’t appear particularly overpriced, but 700k is still 700k. You could probably get a fancy luxury condo downtown for that price in one of the premier buildings with more amenities. The thing is at 700k you have more options.
550k is probably a ballpark number. Lincoln Park has some of the highest cost per square foot in the city if Trulia is any guide, but this has no lake/city view or other things you would get from a 2br/2ba downtown condo.
Bob – I agree it doesn’t seem like much of a deal to me either.
However, new downtown condos with amenities will have higher assessments and taxes. This unit on Arlington has $200 per month assessments (which strikes me as unreasonably low) and $8,200 taxes (which seems high, but again, they’ll most likely be higher downtown based on 1.5 to 2% of purchase price).
This is an active building – all four units have changed hands in the past couple years. The best comp for this unit is Unit 4, which sold for $715,000 in July, 2007. However, that unit had rooftop rights, which i think are worth quite a bit (although you pay for it every day by having to walk up four flights of stairs – ugh).
This sold for $600K in 2005; it was extensively renovated, and now is asking for $700K. I’d like to know what it sold for before 2005. If it sold in, say, 2000 for $500K, then $600K wouldn’t be a bubble price, right? It would be reasonable appreciation.
Kenworthey, I looked it up and the PIN for this unit was created in 2005 with a condo declaration. It used to be either an apartment building or a SFH, but I would bet the extensive renovation was part of the condo conversion… And by the way, unit #1 remained empty from 2005 until 2007. The new owner, strangely, purchased it for $750,000 with no help from a mortgage! Yikes!
Just wanted to thank all of you for your comments and discussions. This thread and others on Cribb Chatter have opened my eyes as to the RE situation in Chicago.
I am returning home to Chicago in the next 2 months and would like to find a place to live in Lincoln Park. Being gone for 10 years (work contracts in Europe), I have lost touch with my beloved windy city and need some advise on choosing a realtor. Can any of you suggest an honest broker, one that isn’t just a “commision seeker” (as G mensioned), one that knows Lincoln Park (especially Fullerton/Clark area) and will help me make an educated decision. Your help is greatly appreciated 😉
Peter
Warsaw / Poland
and this place never sold (listing is “expired.”) Reading back on my comments from months ago, I wonder at the difference a serious recession had made in my attitude (an apparently, most everyone else shopping real estate in Chicago.)