I'm glad that condos never rally came back

[WhipperSnapper]

That would be a peculiarity likely unique to the Chicago market. Of course, I can't determine if you're comparing like product within the same neighbourhood with your continuation of referring to rentals as apartments. For all I know, you're comparing an urban high rise to a suburban townhouse development.

[WhipperSnapper]

What you are saying is a 3 bedroom high end condo apartment will have more parking built than a 3 bedroom high end rental apartment, right?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

That would be a peculiarity likely unique to the Chicago market. Of course, I can't determine if you're comparing like product within the same neighbourhood with your continuation of referring to rentals as apartments. For all I know, you're comparing an urban high rise to a suburban townhouse development.

No I'm comparing the same product in the same market.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

What you are saying is a 3 bedroom high end condo apartment will have more parking built than a 3 bedroom high end rental apartment, right?

No, what I'm saying is that a new construction 70 unit condo building will have 90ish parking spots, while the same if planned as apartments will have 50ish parking spots, and perhaps 20-25 if near a transit stop, plus 30 bicycle spaces (depending on community negotiations).

I never knew this was a uniquely Chicago thing...

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

plus condo owners seem averse to ground level retail, often creating dead streetscapes.

This is definitely a city specific thing. Condos with street level retail are ubiquitous in Toronto. The quality of the retail varies by location, but there's no difference between rental and condo buildings.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Mister F

This is definitely a city specific thing. Condos with street level retail are ubiquitous in Toronto. The quality of the retail varies by location, but there's no difference between rental and condo buildings.

It would seem to be a uniquely Chicago thing:


http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2018/01/bay-area-home-values-tick-up-to-another-high.html

For comparison, here is a similar graphic of single family homes values in SF only. The peaks and valley look a little steeper because, at least in part, the time period covered (x axis) is more compressed, covering 1987 to the present vs 1995 to the present):


http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2018/01/bay-area-home-values-tick-up-to-another-high.html

But, in fact, what the graphs show is that condo values appear to be 25% or so above their 2006 peak whereas single family home values are above the peak by a lesser percentage. This may be because a lot of condo sales are new units whereas almost no new single family homes are being built in SF.

[Steely Dan]

I love condos!

I've now owned 4 different condos. We live in one out in a city neighborhood and we still own one downtown as an investment property.

Over the past 12 years, climbing up the price ladder by parlaying the equity of one condo into more expensive ones (along with getting married) has allowed me to build a net worth from virtually zero to a substantial sum. Buying that first condo was one of the best decisions I ever made (even though it seemed like a horrible idea shortly thereafter, I bought in 2006).

[Pedestrian]

^^So you've done better than the Chicago average (still 9% below the 2006 peak per Case-Shiller).

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

^^So you've done better than the Chicago average (still 9% below the 2006 peak per Case-Shiller).

The suburbs are really struggling here. The city has done quite well though.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

^^So you've done better than the Chicago average (still 9% below the 2006 peak per Case-Shiller).

Yeah, I guess I've been a bit lucky. We've been fortunate to have made a bundle of money on both of our two previous condo sales.

I'm also quite confident that we got our current place below market value, so should we ever sell this place, ka-ching!

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I love condos!

I've now owned 4 different condos. We live in one out in a city neighborhood and we still own one downtown as an investment property.

Over the past 12 years, climbing up the price ladder by parlaying the equity of one condo into a more expensive ones (along with getting married) has allowed me to build a net worth from virtually zero to a substantial sum. Buying that first condo was one of the best decisions I ever made (even though it seemed like a horrible idea shortly thereafter, I bought in 2006).

Same situation for us. We started Andersonville with a 2/2 and moved with that equity gain to a duplex 4/3. Took the gains and are now in a single family in Lincoln Square.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

It would seem to be a uniquely Chicago thing:

This data does show how it’s a uniquely Chicago thing. And to be honest, I’m kind of glad for reasons I’ve stated elsewhere.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

^^So you've done better than the Chicago average (still 9% below the 2006 peak per Case-Shiller).

The problem with a Case Schiller is that it essentially is the real estate version of the Dow Jones Industrial average. You can still make a ton of money on stocks even if the Dow is stagnant.

Chicago’s composite is brought down by the poor performance on the south and west sides, many of which are still under water with their mortgages.

In the central area and the north side, properties have already surpassed their prior peak

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I love condos!

I've now owned 4 different condos. We live in one out in a city neighborhood and we still own one downtown as an investment property.

Over the past 12 years, climbing up the price ladder by parlaying the equity of one condo into a more expensive ones (along with getting married) has allowed me to build a net worth from virtually zero to a substantial sum. Buying that first condo was one of the best decisions I ever made (even though it seemed like a horrible idea shortly thereafter, I bought in 2006).

Well, loving condos as a personal wealth builder, versus how you feel about them as contributors to the built environment, are two different things. Plus, your current condo is a 3 flat in a neighborhood, which is sort of different from what I’m discussing.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Same situation for us. We started Andersonville with a 2/2 and moved with that equity gain to a duplex 4/3. Took the gains and are now in a single family in Lincoln Square.

I started with a studio in marina city (still own it) then moved into my wife's west loop 1/1 highrise, then moved to a 2/1 six flat in edgewater when 1st child came along, now in a 3/3 duplex down in Lincoln square (hi neighbor).

We may one day trade up to the SFH, but the price jump is fucking huge in LS.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Chicago’s composite is brought down by the poor performance on the south and west sides, many of which are still under water with their mortgages.

In the central area and the north side, properties have already surpassed their prior peak

So you are saying that even in Chicago condos HAVE "really come back" leaving me wondering what was the original point.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I started with a studio in marina city (still own it) then moved into my wife's west loop 1/1 highrise, then moved to a 2/1 six flat in edgewater when 1st child came along, now in a 3/3 duplex down in Lincoln square (hi neighbor).

We may one day trade up to the SFH, buy the price jump is fucking huge in LS.

Sounds like you did great though. Not too many 3/3s in LS. Right?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

There remains a perception here that a condo should come with a parking spot,

Condo dwellers, speaking generally, tend to be more established, wealthy, and rooted, and may have kids. Renters are more likely to be 20-something singles.

To me, it's quite obvious why condo units would generate more parking demand. All things equal, a wealthier constituency, possibly with kids, will generate greater parking demand, whether we're talking Hong Kong or Phoenix.

I would also think that cities would prefer homebuyers over renters, generally speaking. You generally want wealthier, less transient households.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Well, loving condos as a personal wealth builder, versus how you feel about them as contributors to the built environment, are two different things. Plus, your current condo is a 3 flat in a neighborhood, which is sort of different from what I’m discussing.

This being a skyscraper fan website, you are of course being provocative opposing high rise condos in the "built environment".

Personally, I love them because they increase population density which, in turn, encourages the presence of 24/7/52 service options: "cities that never sleep". I'm someone who once did my grocery shopping habitually at 2 AM.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Condo dwellers, speaking generally, tend to be more established, wealthy, and rooted, and may have kids. Renters are more likely to be 20-something singles.

To me, it's quite obvious why condo units would generate more parking demand. All things equal, a wealthier constituency, possibly with kids, will generate greater parking demand, whether we're talking Hong Kong or Phoenix.

I would also think that cities would prefer homebuyers over renters, generally speaking. You generally want wealthier, less transient households.

San Francisco's Planning Dept. frowns on cars in general and parking in particular and limits spaces in BOTH new condo and new rental buildings to well below a 1:1 ratio of units to parking spaces. Also, the parking that does exist is not deeded so that all building occupants are constantly in competition with their neighbors for a valet space.