Will new prices and a shift to a new brokerage get units moving again at a Lake View loft development?
Denise Wilbur, who has worked with the conversion of the two buildings at 3133 N Lakewood Ave as an agent for both Sudler Sotheby’s International Realty and The Macon Group, has taken the 11 unsold homes in the 25-unit development to Jameson Real Estate and is listing several of them for slightly lower price points than we’ve seen before.
In November, three-bedrooms at the development started in the $490s, four-bedrooms started in the $670s, and a 1,700 square-foot three-bedroom “penthouse” was priced in the $690s. Among the six units Wilbur has relisted through Jameson last month are a three-bedroom priced in the $460s and a four-bedroom priced in the $620s. The penthouse — one of the few new-construction elements in the development — is now listed in the $640s.
Three types of two-bedroom / two-bath units are listed in the $370s and $380s as well. Monthly assessments for the homes run from $182 to $238, and deeded parking is available for $25,000 a space. Wilbur’s listings mention rent-to-own options for all the remaining lofts; while two residents are taking advantage of that program, the offer is no longer in place for new buyers, she says.
The reductions appear to have sparked some new interest in the units, based on the traffic Wilbur sees at her open houses and the two contracts buyers have signed in recent weeks. Cook County records list nine sales at the building since June, at prices ranging from the $340s to the $600s.
According to Jameson’s Web site, the lofts have “100% New Construction Interiors” featuring 4-inch Brazilian hardwood flooring; 42-inch kitchen cabinetry; granite countertops; GE, Viking and Bosch appliances; stone and tile bath finishes; Kohler bath fixtures; full-size washers and dryers; and private balconies.
NewHomeNotebook:
• Rate and review 3133 Lofts
Wow! Just Wow! I have seen hundreds of Loft conversions but this has to be one of the best I have ever seen. I am jealous. I will leave the price and location expertise to others, but how is this conversion not an award winner?
1.They did not ruin or overpower the street side with to many balconies. Nice respect to neighborhood.
2.Great Architectural addition – nice balance of taking older building and being creative with a modern touch that works well. Others just clunk a square box with too much or too many units, or use cheap aluminum siding, or dryvit. Awesome job here.
3. 1st Class Façade Restoration – from the brick, masonry, copper lentil touches, the detail on the roof walkway, etc. It appears they did not take the adaptive resuse excuse others take when converting the building.
4. Pella Windows – nice touch
5. Nice finishes, quality counter top depth; although the Kitchen seem a bit small, at least the cabinetry is quality.
I wish this developer could do work in the South Loop. Amazing looking project.
Joe Z, I know we have heatedly discussed the expectations of loft conversion “as-is” and “buyer beware”, but IMO, this project is exactly what should be expected, and should set a standard.
The only projects I have seen who have been as sensitive to the restoration thus far in the South Loop have been the Motor Row conversion (with the the three buildings), and possibly the Casablanca Lofts (although they did add quite a few balconies)
Jeff,
because of their depth and width these buildings were ideal candidates for a loft conversion. Not excessively wide or long and the corner lot made it all possible. I walk by these frequently and they are nice.
Jeff,
People should get what they pay for, not what they want.
The Motor Row facade renovation was a very expensive process and it’s to the developer’s credit that he undertook the expense, gambling that buyers would pay extra for a quality product.
Buyers should have the freedom to choose a lower-quality product at a lower price point if that’s what they want.
1. How many people do you know that say – “Gee,
I want to pay for a converted building where
the developer skimped on the facade
inspection and facade & structural repairs”.
Your insistance that all this information is
publically available, accurate, and performed
properly is alarming. If that were the case,
then there are never any problems on
developments. Property reports are prepared by
developers…
2. If only it were that easy or buyers had a
choice. You should change your statement
reflect the current process, “Developers
should have the freedom to choose a lower-
quality product at a lower price point if
that’s what they want”,
As a matter of fact, this is usually written
in bold writing on developer sale material.
3. I will give the developer some credit, but
you are misleading folks here. This was not
an option with the proposal as required by
the Landmarks ordinance for the area. This
was clear going into any restoration project
in Motor Row per the oridinance.
His choice, which I give him credit for, was
that he did it correctly up front when it was
cheaper to perform, and had principles to
stick to the requirements and not try and
substitute when no one was looking. Kudos to
him.
The procedures foisted by others is to butter
up the joints, slap in some morter, and do
the math on cost avoidance he can save in a
lawsuit after the critical inspection.
I think the Motor Row project is great in the
long run for owners and the neighborhood.
The only mistakes I think he made was
a) pricing was a bit high IMO for an area
still gentrifying. But he did have some
good tax incentives to help some.
b) TIF – others are scaming TIF money for
far less reasons. He should have put in
for a request for some of the facade work;
had he been a player in the NSPB, maybe he
could have increased his odds of getting
it. This is one of the few projects I think
that deserved it.
Jeff,
If you can find any jplace where I’ve said – or inferred – that “all this information is
publically available, accurate, and performed
properly …” you should be alarmed.
I’ve never said or inferred any such thing.
Note that Paul Zucker did have a choice as to Motor Row – he could have foregone the deal altogether.
Paul could have, but once he signed on he was obligated. I think Paul did a fantastic job that also sets a standard for any loft conversion, and in regard to the facade work, buyers there are lucky. (let’s hope it does not impact other building features).
If you market a conversion, sell a property that is similar in price and use as something for new construction, what is wrong with the expectation that the facade should not leak, crumble, or fail a critical facade inspection upon turnover, or several years? There is simply no excuse.
Assuming these issues to be legally, procedurally and scientifically documentable, why do we need to load up our legal and court resources for something that needs to be corrected?
Perhaps, this may be one of the few areas where additional government or independant oversight and qualification would be warranted. Every other industry works that way. Part of the problem is that no destructive testing is required or many times used, that could identify the hidden brick, cornice, banding, or structural support system issues. Buyers have no access
to these areas for inspection, nor are they inspected as part of the property report.
I have seem many cases where people have put more money into special assessments & facade repair than they could budget for their downpayment. The kicker is that, they usually can’t amoratize it, or deduct until they sell, which may not bring any benefit with the current capital gains structure for Suzy homeowner.
Just require the escrow money up-front; it will help weed out the shysters.
I like the look of the building and location. Denise Wilbur even helped me on a House Hunter’s episode I filmed last month… we viewed the model unit two bed, two bath.
However, one issue I had was level of finish in the model for the price. Closet organizers were not solid wood, light fixtures were cheap and several unsuited for the loft. The combo living/dining room and second bedroom were small (in the model) for the over $400K price tag in west Lakeview (on Belmont). No room for a dining room table. Msater bath was small.
The building has nicely designed terraces on the west side and the new construction penthouse units are really cool.