Is Elmwood Park worth moving to? (Chicago, Naperville: to rent, low crime, roughest)

[JacksonPanther]

The OP says their budget is $200K, so someone immediately directs them to Elmhurst for a $300K fixer-upper. Nice.

As a long-time Oak Park resident, Elmwood Park is a good choice. EP is a pretty large town, so make sure you identify the specific area you are interested in living, and don't compromise based on some real estate agent with an agenda.

Good job setting a realistic budget, so that all your disposable income won't be tied up, and you can decide to do other things if you want to, such as changing the home to match your taste, or private school, or whatever...

[chet everett]

I think I spent a considerably amount of time explaining to the OP and others why I do not believe it makes sense to plunk down $200k in the town of the title.

I then went further and poked around on Zillow to put some links to homes in towns where the long term value is likely to be considerably better. This all happened on the first page of the this thread.

I then vigorously defended my position, and hopefully educated others to the potential pit falls of purchasing a home in an area that I believe will not show much price appreciation vs purchasing a home very similarly priced in an area that is unlikely to see further price erosion.

I will even post the link that I had from the first page of the thread that is in one such town previously mentioned that is far below the price some other poster things is the norm for that town... 1334 Hamilton Ave, Elmhurst, IL 60126 MLS# 07660157 - Zillow

Much as think parts of Oak Park are wonderful I think at the price point being discussed in this thread a single family detached home is unlikely to be in as safe a location or relatively livable conditions as the one above.

Further I believe the amount of space and the overall value that one could get in Elmwood Park is not as good as offered in the link I included. Frankly if the OP was shopping at an even lower price point I would probably feel differently, however given their relatively good income it is my beleif thst they should not be too modest in their spending. The sad fact is that when people "under shop" they too often end up wanting to move too soon and that too is recipe for ruin, as even in towns with good potential for appreciation it is unlikey that short term price gains are likely to offset the costs of fixing uo a home and marketing it...

[JacksonPanther]

Originally Posted by chet everett

I think I spent a considerably amount of time explaining to the OP and others why I do not believe it makes sense to plunk down $200k in the town of the title.
...

Further I believe the amount of space and the overall value that one could get in Elmwood Park is not as good as offered in the link I included. Frankly if the OP was shopping at an even lower price point I would probably feel differently, however given their relatively good income it is my beleif thst they should not be too modest in their spending. The sad fact is that when people "under shop" they too often end up wanting to move too soon and that too is recipe for ruin, as even in towns with good potential for appreciation it is unlikey that short term price gains are likely to offset the costs of fixing uo a home and marketing it...

Because neither of us will get hired as their real estate agent, we will not be privy to whatever financial conversations they had that led them to $200K being their price point. Without that information I'm going to listen to them, and take them at their word.

Perhaps they don't want a house that will force both of them to work full-time. Perhaps they are thinking about a future where one parent can stay home with the children for several years, without losing their home. Perhaps they look at this job market and understand that one of them could get laid off and be out of work for 6 months to a year, and they want to be able to withstand such an incident without losing their home. Perhaps they just don't want to put every. last. dollar. into the mortgage payment, and instead want to be able to save for college, retirement, vacations, private school, whatever.

I'm sure if you keep moving further west eventually you will find a property even larger, with even more land. But maybe they don't want to live in the middle of nowhere. For city dwellers, Elmhurst may as well be Elburn - either way your city friends won't be coming to visit. Maybe they want the convenience of being if not IN the city, RIGHT NEXT to the city.

[Humboldt1]

I think for 200k they will be very limited in the homes they can buy in Elmwood Park.

As we have already discussed your options will be even more limited in other suburbs such as River Forest or Oak Park.

[Peer79]

Originally Posted by linicx

Let's be clear on this. EP is a mixed neighorhood with mixed incomes. It is not the Garden of Eden, nor is it the dregs of Cook County. If you are near friends and family - you'll figure out the rest as you go along. If you are looking at a specific house it would not hurt to check it on Sunday afternoon when many families are home, and also look at the areas surrounding the house within 3 blocks of it in any direction. It wouldn't hurt to check the neighborhoosds around the schools either. You may find a private school is more practical. - but you might not.

I think this is the most sensible statement I have read on this topic.

[chet everett]

I get the impression that many of this thread have never been past Western Ave in Chicago, let alone actual suburbs across the Cook Co line and certainly not to towns in formally exclusively agricultural communities.

I further believe that more than a few posters have no idea what "decline" means in terms of the overall state of a community.

Beyond the broad trends that are at work in communities that are likely to lag behind their neighbors it is pretty clear that some posters on this thread do not understand that spending any amount in a town where the conditions are likely to deteriorate will be foolish use of ones resources.

It also seems that many posters do not understand that some suburbs where it seems that your money goes farther in comparison to Chicago are really NOT a good value -- the nice urban amenities of desirable neighborhoods in Chicago and pleasnt diversity of such neighborhoods DOES account for real differences in price and the towns that DO NOT HAVE these characteristics are subsequently priced lower. It may come as a surprise to some posters who have not actually ventured out on a Metra express that some towns that just as long a ride (time wise) actually do have some of the desirable characteristics of neighborhoods in Chicago that are lacking in some closer in suburbs.

This phenomae is well known to those in the real estate business and even urban planners and academics that study these things. Long ago, when people were less mobile, the various traists that defined neighborhoods did inch out block by block, but for decades the pattern of "hopping and skipping" has been common. It is this trend that in some ways explains why people in different phases of their life that may choose to still have the intersting boutiques, independent restaurants, and pleasant social gathering spots move from Lincoln Park or Lakeview to Highland Park, Honsdale or Naperville. I suspect that some folks that hope to see a artsy rebirth for Cicero or Berwyn hope to capture some trendsters from Bucktown or Wicker Park but in my experience the "lack of scratch" that goes along with the hipster / slacker lifestyle makes it unlikely to result in an improvement in economic conditions...

Sorta funny how that work.

[Humboldt1]

Great post chet.

[linicx]

Most towns, villages and cities in Illinois have varied incomes, varied ages, varied housing stock, and residents of varying backgrounds, etc., However not all neighbothoods have mixed incomes. It is not common to find a $600,000 house in a neighborhood of $50,000 houese. It is not common to find a $200,000 house in a neighborhoof of million dollar homes. Therein lies the problem. Here is something to consider.

[]] The housing market has not bottomed out. [2] Anyone who invests in say a $300,000 house in a neighborhood of like houses, has no guarantee all the houses, or even one house, in that block, or neighborhood, will retain its value. [3] House prices must decline in the future because the jobs that are being created are not paying what they were prior to 2000. [4] I do not believe the average house today will retain its value in the future.

The gamble is whether or not it will regain its former value in 10-15 years?. This question is answered in location. If the town is in obvious decline, the answer is "not likely". Is it a vibrant town where people want to live, then the answer is "most likely".

"I want to buy a house because prices and interest rates are down. If I wait I might miss a great opportunity to buy a good house at a reduced price!" Realtors love me like ranchers love a great angus bull. They are both $$$$ on feet.

Are you willing to gamble $50,000? If not, then rent untll the housing market bottoms out. Yes, you will pay a higher interest rate. The trade-off is more choice, more house for less money and the house probably will not lose more value.

To the OP: By the time the market bottoms out you will have had the opportunity to closely watch the town of your choice recover or continue to decline. You will have had the chance to watch the forclosures, the sale signs, people moving into and out of the area, and the local stores

A hasty decision today may prove to be an expensive economic lesson in the furure.

[chet everett]

Some useful advice linicx, but the big 'caution' that I keep trying to stress is that this mythical 'bottom' is not like Christmas or some other near universal holiday that everyone can look at a calendar and say "yep, May 28 2346, that is when real estate really turned around, folks who bough on the 27th took a bath and folks who bought on the 29th are golden ...".

In fact what has happened in the past is that the most desirable neighborhoods began to climb in price LONG BEFORE the declining areas even slowed their descent. I suspect that for the bulk of sensibly priced distressed properties in the tip top locations this may already have happened. It won't be reflected in aggregate pricing, but if you talk to real estate agents with deep knowledge of places onnthe Northshore, single family homes in Lincoln Park, prime locations in Hinsdale or other desirable western suburbs they generally will report that the time onnthe market for the nicest homes is far far below where it was just a short time ago. Are there still "bubble blinded" sellers holding outnfor prices they will never see? You bet, but the odds of some of them ever coming to terms with any seller are so remote that I don't really consider these as representative of anything other than the enoroumus capacity for human self delusion / optimism. Like contests with horrendous singing styles that last too many weeks on TV talent shows these are more pathetic amusement than an actual indicator of reality...

If the OP is serious about spending their $200k now on a home that will be very livable, has good schools (which even for folks w/o kids is the largest factor in price stability innthe region) and will very likely out perform others in appreciation with modest updates there are a number of options in desirable areas that would fit the bill NOW, how long they will remain available is impossible to predict.

[chet everett]

I think the OP asked about Elmwood Park IN COMPARISON to other parts of Chicago or surrounding burbs that were similarly priced. In that context it makes sense to focus on the real estate dollar they are willing to spend...