You Can Get a 2/2 With Parking in West Lakeview for Under $340,000: 1658 W. Belmont
This 2-bedroom at 1658 W. Belmont in West Lakeview just came on the market.
This building was converted into condos in 2007-2008 and has 8 units along with outdoor parking.
If this building looks familiar, that’s because we’ve chattered about it several times over the years, including this very unit.
It was on and off the market for 3 years during the housing bust with it finally selling in 2013.
You can see our chatter in April 2013 here where we debated the “hot” market (as the market had turned by 2013 and there were bidding wars.)
Six years later, this property has come back on the market.
If you recall, it has south facing windows in the living and dining room.
This is a rare vintage unit that actually has 2 full baths as most vintage units are 2/1s.
The kitchen has dark cabinets, stainless steel appliances, granite counter tops and a movable island.
The bathrooms have marble tile and granite counter tops.
The listing says the unit has a new furnace, air conditioning, water heater and front loading washer/dryer.
The unit has the features buyers look for including central air and there’s an exterior parking space included.
Since the 2013 sale, the huge Whole Foods has opened down the street.
There are also plenty of shops and restaurants in the surrounding neighborhood and its not far from the Paulina brown line stop.
This unit finally sold in June 2013 for $275,000 after 3 years. It’s now listed for $60,000 more at $335,000.
Is that a deal for a 2/2 in this neighborhood?
Paul Blackburn at @Properties has the listing. You can see the pictures and the floor plan here.
Unit #3E: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1250 square feet
- Sold in March 2008 for $315,000
- Originally listed in February 2010 for $324,900
- Sold in June 2013 for $275,000 (included the parking)
- Currently listed at $335,000 (includes the exterior parking space)
- Assessments are now $372 a month (they were $185 a month in 2013)(includes exterior maintenance, lawn care, scavenger and snow removal)
- Taxes are now $5773 (they were $4816 in April 2013)
- Central Air
- Washer/Dryer in the unit
- Bedroom #1: 12×11
- Bedroom #2: 10×9
- Living room: 16×12
- Dining room: 12×10
- Kitchen: 12×12
a) What? The owner’s a collector of vintage Coca Cola memorabilia
b) Who knows, it was the previous owner’s idea.
c) Dealer. Totally a dealer. The IG shots of the kitchen table transactions… duude!
just steps away from The Pony!!!! what a deal!
whats the deal with the massive Coca Cola ad on the kitchen wall?
Also its kind of weird that the dining room is at the furthest possible distance from the kitchen
Place looks reasonable.
Pricing seems to reflect not having a true open concept Kit/DR/LR, no elevator and no true master bath
The assessments seem a little high, especially with having retail on the first floor
Small point here; Why would the agent use the picture of the exterior with a full length semi truck in it? Would you not want to wait to get a better shot? If I was a buyer I would immediately think busy, trucks, traffic, no thanks. Otherwise its a decent unit in a good location.
“the picture of the exterior with a full length semi truck in it?”
Hadn’t focused on that, but that is *terrible*
seems perfectly reasonable. These taxes are going to kill this city more than people think.
what taxes? The $5700 on this unit, or just in general
Taxes are 1.7% of the listing price. That’s pretty typical for Chicago.
I guess the question is if it makes sense to buy this place vs rent. The all in PITI on this place is probably around $2500-$2750/mo. Can you rent something comparable or better for less than $3000?
Sonies, I mean in general. for example, as my wife and I enter into moderate maturity in our careers, we are considering real estate investment for rent. This is a consequence of low interest rates in general and therefore low returns.
We are absolutely dissuaded from investing our capital into this city to maintain and improve the rental stock. Taxation is therefore starvation of future growth is #1 reason.
We own our home in the city and we don’t seem to be getting very much value for our taxes with more and more potholes left untreated. personal observation anecdotes, but here you go.
“Sonies, I mean in general. for example, as my wife and I enter into moderate maturity in our careers, we are considering real estate investment for rent. This is a consequence of low interest rates in general and therefore low returns. ”
~It’s difficult to make money as a rental property land baron, especially in large cities like Chicago, especially so if you buy the properties using leverage. It’s difficult to find properties that cash flow, at least what I’ve seen in my experience. It’s only going to get worse with rent control which is almost assured within the next two years.
“I guess the question is if it makes sense to buy this place vs rent. The all in PITI on this place is probably around $2500-$2750/mo. Can you rent something comparable or better for less than $3000?”
Who says it costs $3,000 to rent a comparable place? With rent control, it will be $750! If you don’t like those rents, go buy a 6 flat in unincorporated des plaines!
yeah this article here scared the bejeezus outta me
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/opinion/memo-next-mayor-chicagos-pension-pain-about-get-sharper
and yea its one thing if the services are great, police doing a great job, roads and garbage are great, schools are great, etc. but all of those things are flat out horrible and definitely not worth the money being paid in, anyway I’m gone so I don’t have to worry about it anymore, but someday I would like to possibly have a 2nd home there.
Mike,
Potholes are awful here in the north suburbs, too. Not that Chicago doesn’t have issues, but I think this winter has been particularly tough on roads everywhere.
“It’s only going to get worse with rent control which is almost assured within the next two years.”
Why do you say that?
Rent control is a disaster everywhere they’ve had it. Just ask certain cities in California. It actually makes things worse.
So maybe my pothole, etc. post shows up and maybe it doesn’t, but for some reason I blamed Michigan Ave for my flats (Michigan was on my mind), but it happened on Lake Shore, which makes more sense.
On this place, I actually find the location is growing on me and I kind of like the building (although agree the truck photo was bad), but the place itself isn’t great, the photos make it look dark, and it needs some remodeling. If willing to go vintage and do cosmetic remodeling, 2/2 under $340K is certainly possible in Lakeview and — while inventory is lower in general — in North Center, and NC is relevant since this place is probably going to appeal more to someone who would be interested in NC vs., say, ELV.
Rent control would a disaster in Chicago as it is everywhere it exists. Prekwinkle is for and Lightfoot is against it. Prekwinkle would be a complete disaster for the City with close ties to CTU and SEIU.
I’m not a big fan of Lightfoot but she is clearly the lesser of two bads.
“I’m not a big fan of Lightfoot but she is clearly the lesser of two bads.”
————————–
So what, exactly, is “bad” about Lightfoot? What positions of her’s do you disagree with?
My only question about Lightfoot is: Is she related to Gordon?
Lightfoot has little experience and keeps touting that she is progressive, which always scares me. Admittedly, when reading her positions, she doesn’t sound as “progressive” as she tries to claim. No doubt she is better than Prekwinkle.
Sabrina,
I had to reread your comment a few times. By things getting worse, you mean worse for tenants – i.e. rent control actually creates higher rents, whereas I meant rent control would get worse for landlords i.e. lower rents due to price control.
regardless, this:
“A bill introduced in Springfield last week takes the concept of opening up Illinois to rent control to a new level, laying out not only a repeal of the state’s ban but the establishment of rent control boards statewide, tax incentives for landlords to improve rental property and other measures.
“We tried to make something that would work for everyone including landlords, not only the renters,” said state Rep. Mary Flowers, 31st, who introduced H.B. 2192 on Feb. 7. “People are ready to try something new because it’s unconscionable the way rents are rising when incomes have been stagnating.”
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/residential-real-estate/lawmakers-consider-far-reaching-rent-control-bill
“it’s unconscionable the way rents are rising”
Hmm, maybe start by doing something to end the over-reliance on property taxes? Just sayin’.
My gosh, that proposal sounds terrible and very counterproductive. Tax credits for improving properties? Way too complicated. This will only work to discourage rental properties and encourage the deconversion of units. Likely increasing the cost of housing.
That entire article is just hilarious and goes to show how freaking stupid our politicians are
making renters pay a fee each year to have rent control… lol… a 42 person committee to determine things… tax credits… literally no enforcement discussed… good grief
“Hmm, maybe start by doing something to end the over-reliance on property taxes? Just sayin’.”
Well they tried taxing soda and well you know what happened with that…
“By things getting worse, you mean worse for tenants – i.e. rent control actually creates higher rents”
Yes- for tenants.
I lived under rent control. Has anyone else here? (either in NY or California?)
It creates disincentives to update the property which must be why they are including some kind of credits if you update it.
It basically sucks for tenants in the long run. It leads to things like the tenant buying new appliances (has happened many times in San Francisco.)
And, in case anyone hasn’t noticed, rents have basically stopped rising in the last year or two (at least in Chicago.) Supply and demand. They are building thousands of apartments all over the city.
Personally, I am effing tired of corporate apologists pushing rent control. Rents rise while incomes stagnate, so landlords get dumped on. You notice that nobody’s going after multi-billion dollar companies like Jewel with food price controls? I don’t like shills of any kind, and the rent control folks are simply corporate shills protecting their masters.
Even NYC abandoned rent control for it’s less stringent cousin, rent stabilization (impacts increases on relatively lower priced units, does not impact the luxury market).
Under Rent Control, the first thing you do when you cannot increase rents to cover your increasing costs as a landlord is you fire the doorman. Then all that trash here and there that the doorman was picking up, starts to accumulate. The place begins to look shabby – – and both invites crime (broken windows theory), and invites people to treat your property the way you treat your property…e.g. your tenants inflict further damage, that you can no longer afford to fix. You hand the bank the keys and in order to ensure that basic functions of the property are maintained (such as flushing toilets and heat), the bank assigns the property to a receiver.
Rent control is for people who don’t understand basic economics. Rent Stabilization exists only because there is a bona-fide housing crisis in NYC (defined as an overall vacancy rate <5%). As such, it seems rent stabilization is likely also inappropriate for Chicago except in neighborhoods experiencing extreme gentrification. Even then there needs to be an "out" for landlords so they aren't incented to not maintain the property.
“Rent Stabilization exists only because there is a bona-fide housing crisis in NYC”
Hmm, don’t think I agree with that implied causation.
anon (tfo) It is a fact – – not something to agree or disagree on. See attached for further info.
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/rentguidelinesboard/pdf/18HSR.pdf
First paragraph page four: “The HVS also indicated that NYC’s housing market remains tight, finding a Citywide rental vacancy rate of 3.63% in 2017, below the 5% threshold required for rent regulation to continue under State law.”
“the 5% threshold required for rent regulation to continue under State law.”
Ah, different definition of “exists”. To me, it “exists” because the referenced State law was enacted. It “applies currently” (or something) because of the vacancy rate.
What I don’t get about rent control proponents is that I don’t believe anyone has a ‘right’ to live anywhere. We no longer live in a feudal society where the local lord has a fief and as a serf you have ancient feudal rights to farm your small plot of land in exchange for a few days a month working the lord’s land and the forced used of his mills and ovens, etc. Each party had a feudal right going back in many cases, hundreds of years, and that was the basis for possession of the land and the price you paid to subsist. If the local lord tried to strip a serf of his feudal property rights, he in theory, could petition the king’s courts for redress, and often win.
Rent control is something different. It’s imposing what are in essence, feudal obligations, on the parties after making a lease. Rent control is telling the landlord that he or she can only increase rents by ‘X’ amount per yer and he cannot terminate the current tenant’s lease simply to charge a higher rent. The tenant in essence gets a life estate in the unit for a predetermined priced for life. Add your child to the lease at the onset and in theory it’s 2 lifetimes. The landlord then loses control over his own property as the right to charge what the landlord sees fit is taken over the government.
I don’t see how this is progress. It’s actually regression back to a feudal time. It takes of the some of the worst aspects of feudal law and imposes it only on the landlord, and somehow, this is supposed to make rents more affordable. This gives back a property right that feudal serfs used to have and some call it’s called progress.
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/rent-controlled-tenants-sympathy-plight-unnoticed-article-1.3665870
“Qualifying for rent-controlled apartments — whose stock has dwindled to around 25,000 units — requires a tenant to have lived in it since 1971 — or to inherit it from a direct relative who did, after living with them for two years.”
https://nypost.com/2018/04/28/i-got-adopted-at-58-years-old-and-scored-a-sweet-apartment-deal/
“DeTommaso pays just $100 a month for the ground-floor unit, located on an industrial stretch of the Hunters Point neighborhood. A similar two-bedroom unit in the building, which dates to 1930, was recently listed for $1,800 a month, according to the real-estate website StreetEasy.
“The reason I won is that I had to face some great obstacles and because I have such a big heart and I’m kind,” said DeTommaso.
But the owners of the town house disagree. Sugrim and Kowsila Outar, an elderly immigrant couple from Guyana who have owned the building since 1980, have described DeTommaso as a manipulator and nuisance who “tried all ways and means” to secure the apartment, ultimately persuading an invalid to adopt her as his daughter three weeks before he died in July 2009. Although Nicholas DeTommaso was briefly married, he had no children.
“What I don’t get about rent control proponents is that I don’t believe anyone has a ‘right’ to live anywhere.”
I hope you mean “as a tenant”. You still believe in ownership property rights, no??
I don’t believe rent control is the answer but I do think a civil society has an obligation to provide opportunity and I believe some of you think poor people should be relegated to only bad locations, where it follows there is less opportunity for upward mobility….But dagnabit if they screw up your order at your favorite fast food place (which you also think they should have to commute an hour to get to.) There will be hell to pay then!!!
Housing used to be mixed income naturally – – flats/ townhomes / single-family homes all within close proximity. Areas were walkable. People were less concerned that their neighbor got to live in the same neighborhood for substantially less money. Now we are very class focused. The real estate industry has sold exclusivity and “me so special” ness and it is pretty sad.
“I hope you mean “as a tenant”. You still believe in ownership property rights, no??”
That’s my point about feudal rights. The lord had a fief (and the king owned the land); but the tenants of the land literally had ‘rights’ to live there according to the Ancien Régime. The first thing the peasants did during the ‘Great Fear’ was burn the feudal records of their lords. Why? Because those records, often centuries old, was a way to remove the seigneurial rights binding them to the land.
I know this is a long winded history lesson about feudalism but the point is that feudalism bound a landlord and tenant in ways far more intertwined than the customary 12 month lease we are all used to. By controlling how little a landlord can raise rent, and then being unable to terminate the rent controlled lease, the government is actually creating new properties rights between the parties, mostly at the expense of the landlord. Because as a tenant in a rent controlled building (At least in NYC) eviction is only possible with ‘just cause’ and it throws the concept of the 12 month lease out the window. The fact that your heirs can inherit a rent controlled lease is literally a vestige of a feudal concept that a serf passed on tenancy and rights under the ancien regime to his heirs.
This is not progressive, it’s regressive under any other name.
I agree rent is too high, it is very expensive in the city. But I moved to the suburbs where rent is cheap and plentiful, and I don’t get charged 7 cents for every plastic bag I use.
(anecdotally, are you noticing that the compliance with the bag tax is severely lacking these days? Even at major retailers, most these days are willing to let it slide for a bag or two these days. I can’t remember the last time I was actually charged the 7 cents for a bag)….
The Cat: “I don’t believe rent control is the answer but I do think a civil society has an obligation to provide opportunity”
——————————-
Absolutely. How do you go from there, however, to the idea that it is the landlord’s obligation to provide that opportunity? Particularly in the form of rent control or rent “stabilization”?
“I don’t believe rent control is the answer but I do think a civil society has an obligation to provide opportunity and I believe some of you think poor people should be relegated to only bad locations, where it follows there is less opportunity for upward mobility”
As my grandmother’s second cousin once told me as he drove me around the near west side in his CPS squad for his shift as research for a college paper,(and I paraphrase) “there are only two kinds of people who live in this precinct: The naive yuppies who overpay and the criminals who steal from them.”
He went on to say that people have the choice to live anywhere. There are plenty of places in Chicago to live with affordable rents and low crime but the criminals who choose to live in the neighborhoods want to live there. No one is ‘stuck’ in a bad area. They choose to live there for connections, family, friends, community, gangs, crime, or whatever other reason.
Now granted he had a jaded view of Chicago after policing the dumpiest portion of the 70’s and the crack wars of the 80’s and 90’s. But his statement was poignant – crime is confined to relatively small areas of the city, and there’s no reason to live there when you can move a few blocks away and be in a low crime area for roughly the same rent.
In fact, hundreds of thousands of african americans have left chicago proper in the last decade to move to the low crime suburbs with more affordable rents where you get more for your money.
Absolutely. How do you go from there, however, to the idea that it is the landlord’s obligation to provide that opportunity? Particularly in the form of rent control or rent “stabilization”?
My husband is from a foreign country where rent stabilization occurs by way of making it more favorable from a tax perspective for landlords to lose money on a rental (factoring in depreciation, etc.). There are no tax advantages to owning a primary residence. Prices are still high there, but it’s often more favorable from a tax perspective to rent your primary residence and own rental property. I’m not sure if it’s the best way, but at least the government is taking the hit (by way of lower tax revenue) instead of the landlord.