Why would I listen to the CAR or the NAR who have vested interests in buoying the mood of the housing market so they can be paid for selling more homes? It is utterly ridiculous to trust these people, especially as their track record has been abysmal over the years, see here.

What the REALTORS© have said in California was in a very similar light to what we are hearing from the CAR… prices actually increasing, Chicago is a great real estate market, it is a good time to buy, et cetera. Conveniently, the metrics that the REALTORS© use to measure home sales show a shift in the sales distribution curve towards the higher prices when the lower end is falling out, making it appear that median home prices are increasing. They need to use repeat-sale indices to show better trends in home prices. The formal C-S, S&P, etc reports give better pictures of the local markets than these REALTOR© monkeys.

Stewie,

You're new here so you may not be aware that we've had a number of mindless bashers come and go over time.

You've very clearly demonstrated that you're firmly in the know-nothing camp.

Case - Shiiller doesn't give a better picture of the market than CAR data does because C-S data simply isn't available at the local levels that matter. If you want to buy, say, in Lincoln Park or the South Loop you learn nothing from C-S and something useful from CAR data.

Give us the data to back up your superficial statement about the change in median prices.

Oh, wait - you don't have any data. You're just making it up. Or, your statement's meaningless - the median went up because stuff is selling at higher prices. Or it went down because stuff was selling at lower prices. Wow - insightful!

And that, Stewie, is why we pay attention to CAR data and NAR data rather than to anonymous commenters. The data's accurate even when conclusions that prove, in hindsight, to be inaccurate are based on it. The reason you would listen to these people is they know something and you have a lot of learning to do.

The quotes related to the chart you link to speak to a range of issues, most of them beyond the data in the chart. That post demonstrates nothing but the bias of the writer.

Do you have anything to contribute to the topic of this post - the state of parts of the Chicago market?

I think it's foolish to think that Chicago is somehow immune from speculative buying, oversupply of condos and homes, macroeconomic stresses, or bad debt. California, Nevada, and Florida real estate buyers thought they were immune too.

But since you are obviously too smart for this discussion, you don't need to reply; you can just sit smugly at your computer and think I am a complete moron because I disagree with your perception of reality.

You don't agree with me that a group of REALTOR©s has an inherent bias towards presenting data which make any real estate market look favorable which means more business for them? It's ok, I am a complete moron, you can ignore me as I talk about moron-issues.

You don't think it's possible to present the data to show that more homes on the higher-end of the market are sold than homes on the lower-end in a certain time period? It's ok, I am a complete moron, you can ignore me as I talk about moron-issues.

You don't think independent analyses of repeat sales in a SPECIFIC location such as Lincoln Park are invalid simply because they are not from the CAR? It's ok, I am a complete moron, you can ignore me as I talk about moron-issues.

I appreciate your specious reasoning. Keep up the good work.

Stesie,

So - who said anything about Chicago being immune from larger trends?

Of course Realtors have an inherent bias. So what? That has nothing to do with whether their numbers are accurate.

You want to shift the discussion to whether it's "possible to present the data to show" something. I said you had no data to back up your statement and you're not supplying any. Uninformed speculation isn't data. A hypothetical isn't data.

Don't tell me what I think or don't think about the validity of a Case - Shiller approach to, say, Lincoln Park. The simple fact, as I pointed out, is that data isn't available. CAR data is, and it's accurate.

We-re in solid agreement that you're coming across as a moron, and a pompous one at that.

Specious reasoning, Stewie? If you knew what the word meant you'd shut up rather than practicing it. Please shut up, Stewie. We've heard this tedious garbage far too often from far too many of your ilk. If you want to talk, talk about something you know.

Accuracy is not equated with validity; you should remember that from your statistics classes if you graduated high school. Let's say you were one of the people who believed that the moon landing was faked. One of your ilk would handily present data from surveys, experiments, et cetera proving that the moon landing did not occur. Would you be right? In your mind, yes you would be correct, but in reality, you would be wrong.

The CAR will use whatever data it receives and twists them for its own advantage. That bias in itself should make you question the source as well as well as disregard it for market-wide predictions.

You want some data? Go look at the nationwide numbers on foreclosures, median home prices, and NODs. I argue that Chicago is not insulated, and I am backed up by local data, i.e. number of for-sale signs, number of rent-available signs, number of vacant homes, number of homes soon to go on the market. What do my data show? Deteriorating real estate conditions. Are my data accurate? Yes. Are they valid? More valid than the numbers given by a biased organization to show how "TIMES HAVE NEVER BEEN BETTER! IT'S A GREAT TIME TO BUY A NEW HOME!!! WE DON'T CARE IF WE'RE WRONG, WE'LL STILL GET PAID, AND YOU CAN DEFAULT ON YOUR HOME LOAN!" The chief "economists" for these organizations are blatantly wrong over the years, just take a look at Lawrence Yun's performance for instance.

I was right about California's real estate conditions (over 50% increase in foreclosures YOY, when the REALTOR©s over there claimed that real estate prices would NEVER go lower), I was right about the financial sector's losses in the hundreds of billions of dollars from defaulted loans, I was right about the nationwide trends in real-estate, and I was right about the current macroeconomic conditions. It's not difficult to predict these things if you are willing to see what you never want to see, such as a collapse of the real-estate bubble. But, the bubble is bursting right now across the country, and Chicago is in the midst of it despite the biased data from the CAR.

Take it from someone who knows Stewie. Joe is an expert on a wide range of topics.

Stewie,

You apparently haven't noticed that I avoid the market-wide predictions you want to indulge in. Why? Because they're useless to home buyers in the real world. And because, unlike you, I'm not qualified to make them.

The CAR data reports actual sales through the MLS. There is no bias in that data, and you continue to deny the reality of that fact. A property either sold or it didn't. If you question that, it's up to you to provide some factual basis for doing so - not just a simple rant based on your very evident bias.

You refuse to take account, for example, of the fact that the CAR data reflects the sharply decreased pace of sales in the market.

And, Stewie, I understand the distinction between accuracy and validity. The CAR data are completely valid for the conclusions I'm willing to draw from them - how many units sold at what price through the MLS.

Once again you fail to provide any relevant facts to dispute the CAR data, and once again I'll assert that you're incapable of doing so. I've done that several times and you continue to prove me right. You run from facts. Facts frighten you.

House sales have definitely slowed in my hood (central Avondale), there are a few older homes on my block that have been there 6 months +, similar properties within a half mile.

some of it I think is too many people thinking they've missed the bubble, and rushing to sell, which of course has the exact opposite effect of what they want. some of it is just older people passing away, and their kids/family don't seem to take much interest in improving curb appeal, which isn't helping,

as a buyer I think there are a lot of good deals right now, though. were I a wealthy type I'd be buying all sorts of properties in close proximity to L stops, long term it's a smart move as gas keeps going up, and increasing density is making it harder to drive. people with more choice properties (graystones, etc) seem to be slowly entering the market, whereas 6 months ago I think those folks were holding out to see if prices would go back up.

so at least where I am, definitely a market correction of sorts. still nothing remotely resembling a problem, it does of course help to be in a situation where I haveno plan/desire to move anytime soon.

Chicago seems to be about where Miami, LA and Vegas were a couple of years ago. Everyone was saying prices could never go down. Look what happened in those markets. Why is Chicago different? What ensures prices can't go down here? We were late coming to the real estate party so naturally we'll be late leaving.

One of the last markets to rapidly appreciate was Seattle. I remember reading CNN articles claiming it to be immune from the housing recession. Already, it's shown signs of trouble. Chicago is by no means immune. Does anyone really think the South Loop or River North can support all the condos that have been built and are still being built?

Absolutely nothing ensures anything, we are more or less a free marketplace.

but at the end of the day, people need a place to live - housing is not a luxury good. people also need a job to pay for that place to live.

in Chicago's favor is our physical status as hub of the larger area, we sit on one of the largest bodies of freshwater in the world, O'Hare of course, and the somewhat sad state of our closest competitors, Detroit, St. Louis, etc.

population grows, and kids graduating from Big 10 schools and other local universities need to go somewhere to get a job - what college grads are moving to Indianapolis? Or Cleveland?

even in its current state (ignored and underappreciated by TPTB) our public transportation infrastructure is good, with proper investment we can ease our dependency on cars (increasingly important as gas skyrockets), something many places in America are going to have a tough time doing, as they were designed completely car-centric.

the only thing really holding Chicago back is the state of the schools, but nothing new there, people deal, we're still an immigrant town in many ways, it's to be expected that first generation kids need time to perform like their peers.

the corruption is another big problem, but that's one area where I have to somewhat grudgingly give credit where it's due to the hoard of wealthier newcomers, they simply don't put up with inefficient, stupid cronyism a la Ted Matlak - well educated high-earning people don't like excuses for why the City can't perform its basic functions, and they have shown a willingness to boot out the politicians who don't grasp that.

all that said, I'm sure we have a big glut right now in some areas - there will likely be market corrections, but this is the midwest, people are more patient here and in for the long haul, I'm not worried whatsoever.

A tale of two condos sold in 2007 (since everyone is so keen on anecdotal evidence):

Condo #1: In my building in Buena Park. Listed at $299,000. On the market for several months. Price dropped to somewhere around $290,000. Sold for $270,000. Sidenote: Owner had been laid off from job, moved out of state, and was desperate to sell.

Condo #2: Next door to my building in Buena Park. Listed at $280,000. Sold for $275,000 in less than four weeks.

What does anecdotal evidence tell us about the market? Very little! For every home out there languishing on the market and selling way below asking, there are others that are getting snatched up quickly. I prefer hard data to get a sense of the market on the micro North Side of Chicago level.

I think it boils down to a property-by-property basis.

Even hard data isn't going to convey the nuances like your situations above, there are so many factors to account for regarding why one building/condo sells and another doesn't, price is only one factor.

Feeding the anecdotal pot, I'd bet that anything with a lake view isn't going out of style. Anything walking distance from a subway has basic, utilitarian value, etc.

micro is definitely the right word. when I visited San Fran years ago, I loved hearing people discuss the weather, the microclimates are so diverse in even that small area that people are fascinated by them the way some might be fascinated by classical music or chess.

Uptown, your post actually tells us quite a bit. Properly prices homes sell quite briskly, even in this market. Overpriced homes will linger for months, if not years. Sellers will do just fine if they price at the low end of the local comps, but the ones who are holding out for the "price the neighbor got last year" will be waiting for a long time.

Another view on Chicago home prices:
http://blog.lucidrealty.com/2008/04/25/the-truth-about-chicago-area-housing-prices/

Well I guess you can't get more "micro" than a single anecdote. But I'd like to see data specific to my situation. How are two-bedroom condos doing on the North Side of Chicago? Are they holding their value? The macro-level real estate trends are enough to make me worry. People close to the industry will give you varying opinions colored by their own biases and attitudes. Numbers are the only thing worth a hill of beans at the end of the day.

Kurt, I didn't mean to imply that the two properties in my anecdotes were equal. The one priced at $299,000 was much larger and in a walkup that had seen comparables go for that same price from 2004-2007. The buidling next door is a tower with smaller units and high monthly assessments, and comparables were in line with their asking price. These properties were probably priced about $10K lower than peak bubble prices.

Interesting; Empirically, I've heard from a realtor friend that the bottom/middle of the market in her area isn't doing too well, but higher priced property is doing ok, as in moving reasonably.