Subscribe: 
The only one-bedroom condo I entered at 1720 South Michigan last Saturday was this, a 1,091 square-foot one-bedroom / one-bath on the tower’s top floor. Unit 3301, located on the western side of the building, may not look like much from the floor plan posted below, but I found its size and layout to be pretty practical, especially for a single buyer. Its full-width terrace is accessible from two rooms, something I wish I saw more often. Storage space, which has been hard to find in some of 1720’s two-bedroom plans, is in ample supply here — between the walk-in closet next to the entrance, the laundry room across the hall from the bathroom, and the bedroom’s walk-in closet, a buyer won’t have any problem finding a place to pack away a Dirt Devil.
According to CMK’s latest price sheet, this unit has a base price in the $210s, and monthly assessments come out to around $246. (Note: Commenter “mike” is correct — this unit sells on the high end of the one-bedroom spectrum. It’s priced in the low $300s.)
Stop back tomorrow to see some video footage of this unit.
NewHomeNotebook:
• Rate and review 1720 South Michigan
• View a list of new South Loop high-rises
Related posts:
• Sales Center Saturday: Inside a three-bedroom model at 1720 South Michigan (Feb. 2)
• Next stop: A 10th-floor two-bedroom / two-bath at 1720 South Michigan (Feb. 3)
• Stop #3: A southwest-corner two-bedroom on 1720 South Michigan’s 27th floor (Feb. 4)
Related posts:
{ 19 comments }
This does look like a nice pad at a bargain price.
This is the best floorplan I’ve seen for 1/1s: terrace, walk in laundry room, computer alcove, two walk in closets. I bet it sells quickly.
Also from pics of 1720 it appears the PH floor has higher floor heights than the others?
Err ceiling heights I suppose they’re called here.. long day.
Bob,
Judging from the terrace view, those look to be about 10-foot ceiling heights.
Bob: I want to say the 33rd floor has 10-foot ceiling heights for the most part, although the east-facing penthouse that CMK’s staff works out of has 14-foot heights in some places.
If the construction has turned out to be good, this seems to be a well priced unit and would be a cool place for a downtown professional or in-town buyer.
It gets a little off the beaten path at 1720 south, but you are close to the lake and a little quiet is a good thing sometimes.
If those views are true… I agree it should sell and I’d take a buyer there that was looking for a one bed near the Loop.
I will be the disenting voice here. Have been all over this building, and quality wise it sucks, the finishes here int this unit are quite weak, and building ameneties for a brand new building suck bad compared to competion.
That being said, it is a great commuter location with bus stop outside front door, emerging restauraunts, and outdoor space.
From a price point though, assuming you put in 40,00 down, you will have to recoup about $1500 per month (does not include an rental income tax), so this could be cost neutral for the long haul, which is the old school way to make money (and the right way).
However, for the market, IMO, you are better off putting your money into a North Streeterville studio address. For example, saw some studios at 777 N. Michigan $140K-$160K, which will get as good or better rent, stronger rent demand from Northwestern Hospital, slightly higher assessment (with utilities included), you are not renting in a building that shows like a college dorm, and you are on North Michigan Ave. No brainer.
Thanks for your eloquence Jeff. I too tend to agree most of the CMK finish work I have seen looks and feels chap… however, I think this is reflected in the 1720 N Michigan price-point.
I too have been a fan of Streeterville for under $200K if you’re ok with either a very small space, dated looking buildings and no views (this is not a knock, just reality of the price-point). However, if this is going to be my “home” for awhile, I think South Loop right now offers a little more for the money. There is no comparing the location for rental and nightlife opportunities in regard to Streeterville.
That’s “cheap”, not “chap”.
Jeff,
Aren’t those studios at 777 looking directly into Olympia Centre, with no views? They’re also quite a bit smaller than this unit, 7′8″ ceiling heights, much les closet space, and no outdoor space, etc. Agree tht it’s a nice location.
Joe, one of the two I looked at was a west views. 18th floor.
Despite your insistence, Jeff, that this building is entirely investor owned, I know several people who are owner occupiers in this building. And owning a one bedroom at 18th and Michigan is more desirable for them, and many people, than any studio at any location, mag mile or not.
I visited this property last weekend and was laughed at by the salesman. This penthouse unit is listed in the $300s not $210.
Mike:
Actually, that’s probably right. My price sheet lists a base price of $219,900, but I have a note scribbled on the back that says that west one-bedrooms range from the $200s to the $310s. This unit surely falls on the high end of that spectrum. Sorry for the error.
Geoffrey Vrba said:
Despite your insistence, Jeff, that this building is entirely investor owned, I know several people who are owner occupiers in this building. And owning a one bedroom at 18th and Michigan is more desirable for them, and many people, than any studio at any location, mag mile or not.
—————————————
I live in the area and know the desirability as well as anyone, but let’s be realistic here; This building and it’s neighbor, have somoe of the rental % in the South Loop. Last I was told, it was over 45%, and who knows, it could be higher. This is not the ideal condition for condo living for many reasons, including financing.
I am not saying its ideal. I am saying a one bedroom is more attractive at this location to many people than a studio at any location. Especially if you are an owner occupier.
Many people? Let’s use some common sense and real estate basics. This kind of condition (rental %) is a first time home buyers worst nightmare (next to a thief for a developer). I love the South Loop, and even with my bias in favor of what the South Loop has to offer, I will even bow to the obvious financial advantages of a studio in Streeterville in the short and long run.
This rediculous number of renters in a condo building is not a positive sign as
a) It deteriorates market conditions for
most owners looking to sell.
b) In can raise costs of loan to other buyers
c) It potentially disqualifies a pool of buyers
who can not get qualified with certain type
loans for this building. (especially other
first time buyers in the market to buy your
unit)
d) Introduces a crap load of short term renters
and sub-leases by some (not all) renters who
could care less about the long term condition
of a building.
e) It creates degenerate problems for the building
if not addressed (have your friends attend
CAPS meeting to find out what problems they
had on this strip)
f) Foreclosures – If statistics are followed, and
as a percentage of the investors, and absentee
landlords flee, the building association will
be last in line for assessment payments, thus
causing other owners to pick-up the costs until
a new buyer moves in.
Jeff,
I discussed this subject last week with CMK and was told that the percentage of investor-owned units is (my best recall, not having taken notes) 37%. The history of their buildings, according to CMK, is that this percentage decreases over time.
The risks you cite are real, but not always actualized. There are too many variables to predict the eventual course in any particular building.
In the early 80s I made my living buying substantial blocks of condos – 100s of units in all – and renting them until the market returned. None of my projects experienced the problems you cite, although several of them resulted in extreme tensions with homeowners’ associations. The more rational associations recognized that rentals could result in better outcomes than vacancies.
I’d recommend that prospective buyers investigate the actual facts on the ground rather than operate from the theoretical possibilities. Talk to some of the existing homeowners and to the management company.
And, yes, CMK is an advertising client of ours.
So the 42% that an agent reported to me was not far off. It is a risk in any market, but this kind of market just makes it more important to perform due diligance. Talked to an individual who made offer and attempted to get approved for loan at this location. For HUD it was a no go (which may be a saving grace), and then with a prime lender standard loan, based on rental % in building they would have paid a .375-.5% premium on top of advertised loan.
Jeff,
In an earlier comment you said “over 45%, and who knows, it could be higher” – not 42%. So, yeah, that’s a real difference from 37%.
Good advice re due diligence – and Web sites aren’t the sole place to do it.
By HUD I assume you mean FHA. Can’t see why it was a “no go.” The FHA standard hasn’t inreased yet to the announced 70% owner-occupied.
As to financing, the developer has some lender relationships. Is there an interest rate spread due to the renter-occupied percentage from those lenders? I don’t know. Another item for due diligence out there in the real world.
At the end of the process a real buyer weighs all the pluses and minuses of all the final-cut purchase options and makes a decision. If there is a rate spread there might be one at the closest option also, so it doesn’t make sense to isolate this variable from the overall decision.
Comments on this entry are closed.