This morning’s perusal of local listings revealed several hefty price cuts on condos and townhomes at two mixed-income developments, Park Boulevard in Bronzeville (above) and West Village in East Garfield Park.
In the past week, Equity Brokerage Services has slashed prices on eight Park Boulevard homes by $57,000 to $186,000, or 15 to 37 percent off their original list prices. The units are a mix of three-bedroom condos with 1,456 to 1,502 square feet, priced from the $190s to $290s, and two- to four-bedroom townhomes with 1,636 to 2,469 square feet, priced from the $310s to $390s. Most of the homes are located on Dearborn and Federal streets, just south of 35th Street.
Eight of New West Realty’s listings at the Heritage Homes of West Village have dropped in price by double-digit percentages, too. Three three-bedroom / two-bath condos in the 700 and 900 blocks of South Kedzie Avenue are now priced in the $160s, down 15 to 25 percent from their last listed prices. Four townhomes on the same stretch of Kedzie and another in the 3100 block of West Lexington Ave were all reduced by 30 to 34 percent, from a range of the $270s to $350s down to a range of the $180s to $240s.
I really hope prices don’t drop too far in this development.
I’d hate to see Stateway Gardens torn down and replaced by….Stateway Gardens
Many of the former Stateway residents have most likely relocated to other parts of the city. Whether the CHA was terribly helpful in the relocation is a matter for debate I guess. I’m sure the authority was hoping that the market-rate homes sold quickly in order to fund the construction of the affordable units. I will be interesting to see if my alma mater takes action. I’d guess IIT’s endowment is nowhere near that of U of C. That being said, if they could partner with the city or another entity to build a charter school on one of these blocks maybe families would take a look here.
That article is only for (from a quick skim) people who are already homeowners.
I think mixed-income projects are going to be a hard sell unless they are really really nice, well located and priced right with the current market. People aren’t feeling the pressure to buy quickly and, I suspect, will be more picky. Anecdotally, depending on the low-income tenancy structure (i.e. renter vs. owner), there can be problems where owners and subsidized renters are mixed in the same building – it also happens in condominium buildings with lots of renters. I suspect less problems would occur where everyone was either a renter or owner – I didn’t delve into these projects enough to know how this aspect is set up.
Chicago should dissolve the CHA and a new agency, Metropolitan Chicago Housing Authority, should be formed. This should consist of a regional approach to housing the poor, instead of dumping them all on the city’s south and west sides.
It’s time the suburbs start facing social issues instead of running away from them. Besides, poverty in the suburbs has been on the rise as we’ve discussed before.
Funny, tup, how just a few days ago you were highlighting the number of poor in the suburbs!
Exactly, Joe.
Point being, housing the poorest of the poor is no longer just Chicago’s problem. It’s a regional problem.
The notion that CHA alone accommodate these unfortunate people is thinking from a different time. That’s why I proposed the Metropolitan Chicago Housing Authority, a regional authority that works to find housing throughout the region for them. It’s due time the suburbs come to grips with the reality that they no longer are solely the bucolic shelter of the white middle class and that real issues like this need to be dealt with across the region, not just by the city itself.
You can tell he’s not from Chicago. 1. Most of the poor have gone into the poorest south suburbs, which were already mostly black (or even further afield) and 2. part of the whole demo of the projects was to get rid of poor people and ease the problem (shovel it elsewhere, essentially) for the city. I don’t think that there would be any legislative support for doing this, either in the state or suburbs – it would have to be a top down from the Federal level. I do think it is a good idea, but just likely unworkable.
Though if you got new construction involved you might get the support of homebuilders associations who need work.
It’s interesting that over the last 30 years or so, whenever a developer has proposed a high-rise or other project with multiple units per acre in an inner-ring suburb of a major city, they would invariably run up against neighborhood opposition because residents felt that 1) it might turn into public housing or 2) if too many kids ended up living there the town would need to build a new school. They also (somewhat understandibly IMO) feared lower property values due to greater density. An ironic consequence of their actions however is that their kids & grandkids, many of whom would like to raise their children in the suburbs where they grew up, are now priced out in large part because of that lack of more affordable units.
daveydoo,
The opposition is generally stiffer at the municipal than at the neighborhood level.
Suburbs, with an eye on their tax base and expenses, have become highly skllled at playing the zero-kids-per-unit game.
I don’t think however, that one of the scenarios you pose is realistic. There’s little to no demand for family-oriented high-rises in the suburbs. Even if there were, they couldn’t be built to be cost-competitive with smaller family homes in those same suburbs, thus negating your point about affordability.
Do not buy here, plenty of problems with this project
I mean really this was the best they could do. The strategy should have been to first allow the neighborhood to get on its feet and improve a liitle bit. Allow the community to grow and become vibrant with more businesses and residents then introduce mixed income developments.
Mixed income developments stall the economic progress of every neighborhood its located. Bronzeville isn’t nice enough yet(offering more amenitie) for people to take such a risk. The south side already has its share of low income. If mixed income developments need to be built anywhere its LP,LV,RN. Although I know this will never happen. The southside is already diverse and affordable enough.