Rent is way DOWN (Chicago, Maywood: for rent, condo, houses)

[Rusty_Shackleford]

If a house is worth 700K, most of that value is going to be from the land that the house is on, rather than the house itself. Land with that much demand isn't really appropriate for a house... condos or apartments would be what the market is asking for there.

[Humboldt1]

Rusty,

I don't get your last post. A 700K house in Old Irving Park neighborhood is worth way more than the 30 by 125 lot it sits on. That vacant lot is surely worth less than 250K. I don't think lots for 700K houses in the city on standard Chicago size lots (25-30 by 125) are worth that much unless they are in say Gold Coast or Lincoln Park, and the house itself is virtually worthless.

I don't think land is as valuable as you say in most neighborhoods.

[Jesse69]

Humboldt - I don't know my future property tax situation, all I know is that the house will be in a trust. Now, I've never worked at a place longer than 1 year 1 month, and I gotta save lots of money just for future property taxes. Or marry a woman because she would be nice to have even if no kids and she can be a second income to help us get by.

I think Wicker Park condos are going for $400,000 and that's expensive to me too.

[Humboldt1]

Wicker Park condos can be bought starting with studios at 250K going up from there depending upon square footage and amenities.

I have given up on finding a sugar momma. I refuse to be someone's sugar daddy as well. If I get married it will be to someone who can hold their own, though unless they are making mid 6 figs or better I will probably be paying most of the bills. I don't care if they are a waitress so long as they can hold their own and are fairly independent.

[Rusty_Shackleford]

Originally Posted by Humboldt1

Rusty,

I don't get your last post. A 700K house in Old Irving Park neighborhood is worth way more than the 30 by 125 lot it sits on. That vacant lot is surely worth less than 250K. I don't think lots for 700K houses in the city on standard Chicago size lots (25-30 by 125) are worth that much unless they are in say Gold Coast or Lincoln Park, and the house itself is virtually worthless.

I don't think land is as valuable as you say in most neighborhoods.

Maybe I'm wrong then. But if that is true, why would there be any vacant lots? If somebody can buy a lot for less than 250k, they could build a house on it and sell it for 700k. My understanding is that building a house should cost significantly less than 200k... meaning they would make over a quarter million dollars in profit by developing the lot. That wouldn't make much sense.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by Jesse69

I hope house prices crash 70% lower. So a $700,000 house would be $210,000 instead - way more affordable.

Smart. That would completely destroy the economy, and make the bank failures we see now look like a drop in the bucket. Your comment is the equivalent of saying, "I want a worldwide economic depression! Yay!"

[andrew61]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

Smart. That would completely destroy the economy, and make the bank failures we see now look like a drop in the bucket. Your comment is the equivalent of saying, "I want a worldwide economic depression! Yay!"

Well, even in a depression there are winners as well as losers. Heck, in some parts of the Cleveland area, house prices have already dropped 70 percent even though they weren't very high to begin with. And we're talking halfway decent neighborhoods, even. I'm actually toying with the idea of moving back, scooping up a dirt-cheap house and paying all cash.

[andrew61]

Back to the original topic of this thread... I haven't noticed that rents are down because last time I shopped for a rental was just over a year ago and it seemed prices were higher than ever. But I've been hearing through the grapevine that because of the bad economy, quite a few younger people who rent are moving "back home" with their parents because they've lost their jobs and can no longer afford their rent payments. And I saw recent Census figures showing that the city of Chicago has lost 60,000 people since 2000. It's making me wonder whether we're going to start seeing a higher vacancy rate and somewhat lower rents for awhile. All this is anecdotal, however, so I can't say for sure.

[lincolnparker]

Anyone concur?

[Avengerfire]

It has been dropping for months.