Residential Real Estate in your city

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ twister clearly mentioned buying a condo, so the SFH world isn't terribly relevant to his plan.

Right, but the sales data is SFH. Aggregated MLS data is almost always SFH. When you hear a headline "Denver residential real estate skyrockets" or whatever, it's referencing aggregated SFH data. So why would someone in a Denver SFH think Lakeview has cheaper living?

Again, and I seem to be in the minority on this thread, but this entire narrative is based on false assumptions and weird apples-trucks comparisons. No doubt you can get a 1960's/1970's Lakeview condo for 200k, but so what? Denver doesn't have that stuff (aging, truly urban, for-sale multifamily where the cost is weighted to the monthlies rather than the mortgage).

The apples-apples stuff in Lakeview is insanely expensive. The one SFH owner I know in Lakeview has a (good, but not fabulous) home purchased for just under $3 million, and it's smaller than most higher-end suburban homes. Granted, it's a great block, and practically Lincoln Park. But $3 million isn't cheap, anywhere really.

[mhays]

That's a good point about the lack of older condos. Seattle is similar. We didn't even allow condos until about 1979 I'd guess, hence the mini-flurry around 1982. We were also much less urban then.

PS a note about Denver condos...there are a lot of cheap ones, but it turns out those are generally income restricted per a local program.

Seattle (and Denver) also suffer from a relative lack of new condos. We both have pretty strict liability laws, which effectively limit condos to high-end units. The laws have eased somewhat lately but still remain.

[pip]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Right, but the sales data is SFH. Aggregated MLS data is almost always SFH. When you hear a headline "Denver residential real estate skyrockets" or whatever, it's referencing aggregated SFH data. So why would someone in a Denver SFH think Lakeview has cheaper living?

Again, and I seem to be in the minority on this thread, but this entire narrative is based on false assumptions and weird apples-trucks comparisons. No doubt you can get a 1960's/1970's Lakeview condo for 200k, but so what? Denver doesn't have that stuff (aging, truly urban, for-sale multifamily where the cost is weighted to the monthlies rather than the mortgage).

The apples-apples stuff in Lakeview is insanely expensive. The one SFH owner I know in Lakeview has a (good, but not fabulous) home purchased for just under $3 million, and it's smaller than most higher-end suburban homes. Granted, it's a great block, and practically Lincoln Park. But $3 million isn't cheap, anywhere really.

In the middle of the city part of the city of course its expensive. Most housing by far is multi unit.

How much is a single family home in Midtown Manhattan?

Is this for real?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No doubt you can get a 1960's/1970's Lakeview condo for 200k, but so what? Denver doesn't have that stuff

I think that's twister's point.

Chicago has cheap as — condos in bonafide urban neighborhoods.

Denver's options for bonafide urban neighborhoods are not only far more limited than chicago's, the for sale multi-family within them is also much more limited and expensive because the city doesn't have anywhere near the amount of legacy for sale multi-family that Chicago does, both the larger scale 60s/70s stuff, and the monumental amount of smaller scale pre-war "missing middle" flat buildings.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I think that's twister's point.

Chicago has cheap as — condos in bonafide urban neighborhoods.

Right, but they aren't cheaper living options than Denver. They're different living options. Lakeview SFHs aren't cheap; housing that doesn't exist in Denver obviously can't compared.

I mean, Manhattan is cheaper than Michigan using this logic. There are apartments in Manhattan renting for practically nothing (rent controlled, public and other non-market units), and there are limited equity coops that sell for $1, basically. But Michigan doesn't have this, and apples-apples housing differences are huge, so what's the point?

Lakeview, for families, is an extremely expensive neighborhood. You'd get more house for your money in Winnetka.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Right, but they aren't cheaper living options than Denver. They're different living options. housing that doesn't exist in Denver obviously can't compared.

But Denver does have for sale multi-family housing, it's just nowhere near as ubiquitous as it is in Chicago, and the more limited supply that does exist in Denver's more limited urban neighborhoods is comparatively more expensive. That was twister's point.

"Holy —, I can buy a condo for only $200k in a bonafide urban neighborhood like Lakeview! You can't do that in Denver these days.

That's pretty cool, maybe I should do it?"

Originally Posted by Crawford

Lakeview, for families, is an extremely expensive neighborhood.

Only for those that demand to have one of the extremely low-supply detached SFH's (only 8% of LV's housing units).

For regular city people who don't mind raising their family in multi-family housing, LV is not an egregiously expensive place, thanks in no small part to Chicago's gigantic supply of legacy missing middle flat buildings that tend to have larger housing units than typical larger-scale apartment/condo buildings.

Friends of ours are raising their two boys in lakeview (Roscoe/Sheffield) in a condo in a 6-flat that they bought roughly a decade ago for around $350K. They're both school teachers (1 for CPS, 1 for city college).

[twister244]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Right, but they aren't cheaper living options than Denver. They're different living options. Lakeview SFHs aren't cheap; housing that doesn't exist in Denver obviously can't compared.

I mean, Manhattan is cheaper than Michigan using this logic. There are apartments in Manhattan renting for practically nothing (rent controlled, public and other non-market units), and there are limited equity coops that sell for $1, basically. But Michigan doesn't have this, and apples-apples housing differences are huge, so what's the point?

Lakeview, for families, is an extremely expensive neighborhood. You'd get more house for your money in Winnetka.

You seem to be really caught up in SFH and Lakeview....

I simply brought up those neighborhoods since I am a single gay guy that wants to be close to boys, boats, and water.....

If you zoom out and start looking at neighborhoods a bit further away, but still very urban compared to Denver, and have much more in terms of transit options, then you can start finding your sacred SFH where you can raise your 20 kids. And it's still WAY cheaper than Denver right now. Again, the AVERAGE selling price inside Denver is now north of $600k, which means the table is tilting in favor of cities like Chicago, even with their taxes.

Want something a little more apples-to-apples on the SFH front?

Here's a listing near the Irving Park hood in Chicago that's around 2200 sq ft - https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/5120-W-Pensacola-Ave-60641/home/13477215

And here's a similar home in Denver's Cap Hill hood - https://www.redfin.com/CO/Denver/850-N-Ogden-St-80218/home/34101205

Similar home in Denver.... 150% the cost. And that's just browsing around the NW neighborhoods. Want a whole city block for $2? You can do that on the South Side. There's not a stone unturned in Denver where you can get anything cheap anymore.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by mhays

That's a good point about the lack of older condos. Seattle is similar. We didn't even allow condos until about 1979 I'd guess, hence the mini-flurry around 1982. We were also much less urban then.

PS a note about Denver condos...there are a lot of cheap ones, but it turns out those are generally income restricted per a local program.

Seattle (and Denver) also suffer from a relative lack of new condos. We both have pretty strict liability laws, which effectively limit condos to high-end units. The laws have eased somewhat lately but still remain.

Chicago's had condos since 1963 but many of the older buildings referenced here were built as rentals and condo-ized in the 1990s. Generally older buildings with high maintenance costs and they're a little out-of-sync with market expectations (no open floorplans, no in-unit laundry, etc).

Originally Posted by Crawford

Right, but they aren't cheaper living options than Denver. They're different living options. Lakeview SFHs aren't cheap; housing that doesn't exist in Denver obviously can't compared.

This whole argument is kind of exhausting. Yes, Chicago has different housing options than a fast-growing Sunbelt metro... but if you're comparing cities then you should take that into account. Denver undoubtedly has plenty of people who buy SFH because that's the default option there, not because they really need an SFH. 3-bed condos like the one Steely owns, in walkable distance to transit and amenities, don't exist in Denver in large numbers so obviously families never consider them, even if they might hypothetically serve their needs just as well.

If I packed up my Denver suburban home and moved to Paris, I obviously wouldn't expect to have the same kinds of housing options. Why is it any different for Chicago?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ardecila

(no open floorplans, no in-unit laundry, etc).

The open plan thing typically requires a gut rehab of a vintage Chicago flat building (because the kitchens, and all of their plumbing, were almost always located at the very back of the plan, so it's typically big bucks to bring them forward), but of the 6 vintage pre-war flat buildings that I've lived in over the decades in Chicago, 4 had been retrofitted for in-unit laundry, including our current condo, so that one isn't all that uncommon.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

The open plan thing typically requires a gut rehab of a vintage Chicago flat building (because the kitchens, and all of their plumbing, were almost always located at the very back of the plan, so it's typically big bucks to bring them forward), but of the 6 vintage pre-war flat buildings that I've lived in over the decades in Chicago, 4 had been retrofitted for in-unit laundry, including our current condo, so that one isn't all that uncommon.

Ah I'm thinking more of the lakefront highrises from the 1920s thru 1970s, or 4+1s. I did plenty of layouts for rehabs in these buildings in the Gold Coast where we opened the floorplan and added in-unit laundry.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by twister244

You seem to be really caught up in SFH and Lakeview....
Again, the AVERAGE selling price inside Denver is now north of $600k, which means the table is tilting in favor of cities like Chicago, even with their taxes.

Here are the current Zillow results for all Lakeview, Chicago homes from 600k.

https://www.zillow.com/homes/60657_rb/

Mostly smaller units on noisy streets with two beds/two baths and high monthlies, most without parking so not apples-apples with typical SFHs. How many people do you know who are gonna move from a SFH to a smaller apartment, with higher monthly costs, and call it cheaper?

Again, I don't see what people are smoking. At 600k, nothing for typical U.S. family buyers, who want bedrooms for their kids and space, and parking, and quiet, and room for guests, and don't want to pay thousands extra in monthlies. Which is why most, except for hard-core urbanites, or the wealthy, end up in suburbs, or in cheaper, quieter city neighborhoods.

Now for an urban-oriented single person, or a DINK household, especially one without a car, any urban area, even Manhattan, can be cheap compared to suburbia, but, again, that's not apples-apples.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

At 600k, nothing for typical family buyers, who want bedrooms for their kids and space, and parking, and quiet, and room for guests, and don't want to pay thousands extra in monthlies.

Here's a 3 bed/2 bath 2,000 SF duplex-down in a beautiful old greystone on a quiet side street in the heart of Lakeview with garage parking and even a small backyard that's more than adequate for comfortably raising a family of 4 in listed at $560K: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3229-...tm_medium=referral&utm_source=emailshare


3/3 2,200 SF duplex-down w/ parking for $560K: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/814-W...tm_medium=referral&utm_source=emailshare


3/3 2,500 SF duplex-down w/ parking for $475K: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/843-W...tm_medium=referral&utm_source=emailshare

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Here are the current Zillow results for all Lakeview, Chicago homes from 600k.

https://www.zillow.com/homes/60657_rb/

Mostly smaller units on noisy streets with two beds/two baths and high monthlies, most without parking so not apples-apples with typical SFHs. How many people do you know who are gonna move from a SFH to a smaller apartment, with higher monthly costs, and call it cheaper?

Again, I don't see what people are smoking. At 600k, nothing for typical U.S. family buyers, who want bedrooms for their kids and space, and parking, and quiet, and room for guests, and don't want to pay thousands extra in monthlies. Which is why most, except for hard-core urbanites, or the wealthy, end up in suburbs, or in cheaper, quieter city neighborhoods.

Now for an urban-oriented single person, or a DINK household, especially one without a car, any urban area, even Manhattan, can be cheap compared to suburbia, but, again, that's not apples-apples.

" urban-oriented single person, or a DINK household, especially one without a car, any urban area". Well, that would would mostly want to live in Lakeview... once families start to have kids they would mostly want to live either further out, with a single family, or in the suburbs... single family houses are very expensive in Chicago's desirable areas like Lakeview... in the last Chicago real estate boom when I lived there (90s to 2005), developers would buy single family homes and knock them down to build long skinny condos of 3-4 floors (one or two condo each floor). Lakeview put a moratorium on those developments. One developer near my condo in Edgewater knocked down three houses in a row to build what looked like a prefab condo complex of 2-bedrooms. i was told that the second bedroom was barely big enough to fit a bed.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Here's a 3 bed/2 bath 2,000 SF duplex-down in a beautiful old greystone on a quiet side street in the heart of Lakeview with garage parking and even a small backyard that's more than adequate for comfortably raising a family of 4 in listed at $560K: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3229-...tm_medium=referral&utm_source=emailshare


3/3 2,200 SF duplex-down w/ parking for $560K: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/814-W...tm_medium=referral&utm_source=emailshare


3/3 2,500 SF duplex-down w/ parking for $475K: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/843-W...tm_medium=referral&utm_source=emailshare

This is why CHicago is such a good deal. We looked at townhouses here (similar price and size) but had no where near the character as this. The only reason I could see being that 'cheap' was that the kitchen and bathrooms were not outfitted with the latest and greatest.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

This is why CHicago is such a good deal. We looked at townhouses here (similar price and size) but had no where near the character as this. The only reason I could see being that 'cheap' was that the kitchen and bathrooms were not outfitted with the latest and greatest.

Right, that kitchen certainly won't wet the — of the HGTV crowd, but not everyone cares about that —. You can still easily prepare meals to feed a family of 4 in that kitchen. And best of all for families, it looks like it has space for a breakfast table at the back which I've found to be of tremendous value for day-to-day meals with young children.

Our kitchen is now over 20 years old and would be considered outdated were we to put our condo on the market, but it's a totally serviceable kitchen that works just fine for us. Updated finishes wouldn't make it function any differently. It'd just be "prettier" to look at.

[digitallagasse]

So as someone middle income with a family looking to move to Chicago I can share what we have actually been looking at. I even check off the box of being work from home and working in tech. We are a family of 4 with two young kids.

Here are actual properties we are looking at to buy with the first one being the top choice. Would be finishing it to be duplex down.

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhom...tland-St-1_Chicago_IL_60647_M81222-64445

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhom...-Ave-Apt-G_Chicago_IL_60647_M71495-97329

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/2867-W-Palmer-St-G_Chicago_IL_60647_M79023-02630

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhom...Blvd-Apt-2_Chicago_IL_60647_M80364-48346

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by digitallagasse

So as someone middle income with a family looking to move to Chicago I can share what we have actually been looking at. I even check off the box of being work from home and working in tech. We are a family of 4 with two young kids.

Here are actual properties we are looking at to buy with the first one being the top choice. Would be finishing it to be duplex down.

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhom...tland-St-1_Chicago_IL_60647_M81222-64445

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhom...-Ave-Apt-G_Chicago_IL_60647_M71495-97329

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/2867-W-Palmer-St-G_Chicago_IL_60647_M79023-02630

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhom...Blvd-Apt-2_Chicago_IL_60647_M80364-48346

Honestly, depending on your budget, the only one of those units I would even consider is the first one. I'd rule out any unit that was exclusively on the basement/below grade. Kedzie is a basement unit on a busy street, hard no! Also, a good rule of thumb is to stay east of Western, when you can in/near Bucktown/Wicker Park.

At the $400-500K price point in trendy/family friendly neighborhoods there is going to be a "gotcha ya" - Safety issues, busy street, on the EL, or building quality issues (ie. Split face brick, etc).

Unless you plan on spending at least 5-7 years in a condo, you're better off renting.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

Honestly, depending on your budget, the only one of those units I would even consider is the first one. I'd rule out any unit that was exclusively on the basement/below grade.

yeah, my personal preferences would steer me away from any exclusively below grade units as well.

duplex-downs are fine, but homes that are exclusively on the basement/garden level would be too dark for me.

that said, looking at the pictures, the 4th option is clearly on a fully above grade floor.

#1 would still be my first choice for the flexibility afforded by the potential of a basement build-out.

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

Also, a good rule of thumb is to stay east of Western, when you can in/near Bucktown/Wicker Park.

yeah, "don't go west of western" was the old realtor conventional wisdom of decades past, but that has been turned on its head since the creation of the 606.

and by the time you get up to logan/avondale, you can completely throw it out the window these days as those places have exploded with gentrification.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Right, that kitchen certainly won't wet the — of the HGTV crowd, but not everyone cares about that —. You can still easily prepare meals to feed a family of 4 in that kitchen. And best of all for families, it looks like it has space for a breakfast table at the back which I've found to be of tremendous value for day-to-day meals with young children.

Our kitchen is now over 20 years old and would be considered outdated were we to put our condo on the market, but it's a totally serviceable kitchen that works just fine for us. Updated finishes wouldn't make it function any differently. It'd just be "prettier" to look at.

Your kitchen might be 'dated' but I seriously doubt it would deter very many if it were on the market whereas the cabinetry and appliances on the one for sale look like something out of my first apartment.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

Your kitchen might be 'dated' but I seriously doubt it would deter very many if it were on the market whereas the cabinetry and appliances on the one for sale look like something out of my first apartment.

i wish i had a pic of the kitchen from my very first college apartment, because the kitchen in that lakeview duplex-down looks like its from a ritzy northshore mansion by comparison.

i lived in some pretty serious shithole apartments in my youth. the radiators got so hot in wintertime in one of them that me and my roommate would sometimes cook food on them.

it was ridiculous. it was an old steam boiler building so we didn't have a thermostat, and it would get so freaking hot in there that we often had to open the windows... in — january!

still, i'm glad to have those fun, hazy, drunken memories of cooking up tater tots on the living room radiator while we played golden eye and mario kart all night long as bone-chilling 10 degree air drafts would waft through the room from the cracked open window. good times. oh to be young and drunk and broke.......