Our file on the Haberdasher Square Lofts, 710 – 728 W Jackson Blvd, dates back to 1996, when American Invsco was closing out the project’s first phase and launching into its second.
The initial round of development saw the conversion of an old 12-story building, formerly occupied by the Hart Schaffner Marx clothing company, into 150 lofts; the second phase adapted an eight-story, red-brick structure once known as the Wurlitzer Building into 84 units, with amenities like a rooftop dog run, a small basketball court, a party room, a fitness room, and a sundeck with hot tub.
At the time, Phase II’s lofts ranged from $111,500 for one-bedrooms with 795 square feet to $206,500 for two-bedrooms with 1,500 square feet.
Jump forward 15 years to today, prices at Haberdasher Square range from $199,000, the list price for a 1,000 square-foot, one-bedroom / one-bath short sale listed by our friend Ted Guarnero, to $389,000, for a 1,670 square-foot two-bedroom / two-bath.
No units are listed for rent.
Six lofts have sold at Haberdasher Square in the past year, closing anywhere from the $260s to $640s. In fact, that home in the $260s — unit #326 — was the “loft of many nooks” that Joe Zekas and Ted Guarnero visited during a tour of the building last spring:
Although I love this building, the HOA fees are a bit high, even if they have 24/7 door staff. I think they were hit with some big specials some time ago and maybe the higher HOAs are put in place to build up the reserves. And while I think they aren’t anticipating any more big repairs, I doubt the HOA fees will ever decrease. There is a “loft of many nooks” avail at $206K now with parking, but $547/mo is steep. I know its got 1200+ sq feet, but still for a 1 bed that is steep.
“Steep” is a word that implies a comparison. What similar-sized units in similar buildings with comparable amenities and services have assessments that are markedly lower?
OK maybe “steep” was not a good choice of words. Because this is just a 1 bedroom, I feel that $547/mo is high. I know HOA fees are usually determined based on %age of ownership / sq footage of the unit and not the # of bedrooms. I’ve seen this unit and while it is unique, the usable space is a bit awkward and not very practical. As far as amenities are concerned, the only thing I’d say this building has that differs from other full amenity buildings is the 1/2 sized basketball court which shouldn’t warrant a higher HOA fee; unlike a pool which requires costly maintenance.
It seems, jake, that “feel” is the right choice of words for your lack of any objective basis for stating that these asssessments are high.
I disagree as I’m sure a lot of other people would too. I’ve been in the market actively searching for a loft for several months now and this place is definitely on the higher end of the spectrum with respect to HOA fees.
And why are you so snarky with your replies? I know you’ve pissed off a good number of people with your comments, it’s evident by lack of visitor participation on your website. You will never be like cribchatter. I’m out of here!
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1000-W-Washington-Blvd-60607/unit-226/home/12575502
Asking you to back up your statements with facts is not snark.
Challenging your ignorance or avoidance of the relevance of the square-footage (1,250) of this unit to its assessment level is not snark.
Cribchatter’s fact-free feeling friendly. We’re not and won’t be. Your approach will get a warm welcome there among the never-gonna-buy crowd and won’t be missed here.
We care more about the number of visitors we reach than whether they participate in discussions here. I’ll match our unique visitor count against CribChatter’s any time.