House Hunters: Buying in the USA

[laredhead]

The Detroit couple are now on my list of least favorite HH's.  They were very unpleasant and didn't seem to have much respect for each other.  If they are not that way in real life, they certainly gave that impression to millions of people.  If it was an act, it wasn't very funny and I would be embarassed to be portrayed like that.  I would think that his job as a new home builder would allow him to purchase something more than a $300,000 house.  I missed her profession if one was given.  He referred to their visit to the place where they were married as returning "to the scene of the crime".  The one they chose looked nice, but it is small.  One of the guests commented at the end that in a few months their child's toys would be taking over the living room, and there wasn't another area for her play.  Maybe they can finish out the basement and make a playroom downstairs.  Seeing her playing on the kitchen floor reminded me that's where my son used to play every evening while I cooked dinner.  I didn't live in a house with an open floor plan where I could see 360 degrees, but we all survived just fine.

Edited March 19, 2015 by laredhead

[truther]

"Detroit" (or wherever they are) was the first ep I've watched in a couple weeks and it'll be enough for at least a few more weeks.  Ugh.  Manufactured tension and stupid HH demands are simply not fun to watch.  Glad to see others felt the same way.  Where's the enjoyment in watching unpleasant people behave unpleasantly?

[aguabella]

Maybe she will be featured on a future HH Renovation episode.  Her mantra really was "blow out walls".  Hope the neighborhood in which she bought will support a $150,000 renovation and final valuation price.  Digging out a basement looks major.

 

I haven't noticed any crossover between HH and HHR since HHR's first season, approximately.  Has anyone else?

 

It appears HHR has their own team, films the house hunt a little differently and casts their own participants.

[laredhead]

Aguabella, then maybe they'll feature her on a future episode of HH Where Are They Now, if they ever do another one of those.

[buttersister]

Ha, I thought that third Detroit-area house looked familiar--boy do those bathrooms look different! Found out today I know a previous owner. Let's just say that two kids somehow got raised there. And to the best of my knowledge, there are no bodies in the walls of the basement, asswipe.

[aguabella]

Aguabella, then maybe they'll feature her on a future episode of HH Where Are They Now, if they ever do another one of those.

 

Agree, that's a given.  Sorta' hope they don't bring her back but they probably will.  (See below.)

[aguabella]

There's no way that Chicago HH lived in the house she bought.  She was definitely looking to flip it yet couldn't understand not to put high end finishes if she wanted to make money.

 

 

Darn, system ate my post so here's a shorter version.

 

Had the same feeling while watching the episode, NYGirl.  She didn't live there during the construction, obviously, and didn't believe she ever would, in spite of the "meeting the neighbors" comments.

 

Turns out she's not just a flipper but an investor who set up an LLC and was using HH to market not only her property but herself.  Appears she's selling investment opportunities and probably a weekend (BS) seminar to go along with them.  Hey, if her 12% ROI doesn't pan out, will tptb bail us out?  Hahahaha ...

 

We all realize that HH is reality television and therefore, not real.  At the end of the day, however, we can be sure (well, most of the time) that the participants purchased the property filmed at the stated price about 6 months ago and did move in.  Not so with Amy.   

 

I hesitated to add the listing's link b/c I hate to promote her business.  Here's the property's active listing:

 

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/3224-W-Belle-Plaine-Ave_Chicago_IL_60618_M84108-01554

 

Chicago area posters, one website called this address Albany Park, IIRC, instead of Irving Park.  What's up with those neighborhoods?  "Transitional", "up and coming" or previously came and went?

 

Amy listed the property on 12/2, just in time for that December selling season, lol, at $525K.  She reduced it a few grand on 1/31 and then down to $499,900 on 2/3, at 60 days.  Perhaps Weston (realtor from HH, the selling agent) had a chat with her!

 

Will post a little more on Amy later.

 

ETA:  I'm sure everyone will notice the apartment buildings across the street from the house.  Hey if the (HGTV production company) camera didn't film them, they don't exist, right?  lol

Edited March 20, 2015 by aguabella

[JasmineFlower]

Albany Park and Irving Park are next to one another, so it's probably close to the border of the two and people who care about it, like this woman, choose to call it one over the other. I'm not up on that area (at all) but unless a ton has changed recently, Irving Park is more gentrified and would command a higher price than Albany Park. So, it's probably technically in Albany Park but she'll call it Irving Park if she can get away with it. It happens in other areas of the city as well, someone lives in Lake View/Wrigleyville and they tell people they live in Lincoln Park, people live in Kenwood but say they live in Hyde Park, etc.

[truther]

It's neat that Google Streetview shows the house in the pre-reno condition.

 

I've lived in River North, Streeterville, Lakeview and Hyde Park so, from my comparatively snobby Chicago credentials, I don't know that it matters too much whether a house is in "Albany Park" as opposed to "Irving Park" since neither has any particular cache among Chicago neighborhoods.  (No disrespect meant to anyone who lives there.)  I agree, though, that Irving Park is probably a little preferable.  The listing on the active listing website looks great.  They've staged it well.  Those apartments on the other side are fairly ubiquitous on the North Side of Chicago so I wouldn't worry about them.  You can get that in Lincoln Park or any other tony area of town. 

[laredhead]

Aguabella, good research job on the Chicago flipper/investor/whatever.  Nice furniture staging, but the dining/living room is very narrow and the wide angle pictures make things look larger than they are.  The dining room table is practically on top of the sofa.  In one of the bedrooms, the bed was shoved against the wall which would make it very difficult to make the bed.  In another bedroom, the only place to put the bed was in front of a window and the high headboard just accentuates that problem, IMO.  What did she say her purchase price was on the episode?  I have already forgotten that.  

[aguabella]

Aguabella, good research job on the Chicago flipper/investor/whatever.  Nice furniture staging, but the dining/living room is very narrow and the wide angle pictures make things look larger than they are.  The dining room table is practically on top of the sofa.  In one of the bedrooms, the bed was shoved against the wall which would make it very difficult to make the bed.  In another bedroom, the only place to put the bed was in front of a window and the high headboard just accentuates that problem, IMO.  What did she say her purchase price was on the episode?  I have already forgotten that.  

 

Thanks, laredhead.  The property had been listed at $230K but she paid 218K and had an initial reno budget of $135K.

 

Kinda' funny about the staging.  Initially, I thought it looked nice and noticed the camera work.  Then, looking at the details, it appears confused and disjointed.

 

I try to primarily stage for my most likely purchaser.  Thought they were staging for 2-3 young professionals but given the 4 bedrooms and basement, it might sell faster as a family home. 

 

IMHO they could have gone with just 1 dining space (well 2, including the island) but they needed to define it with a chandelier.  That small, round table might have worked better in the front room and then the back space could have been another living space or family room.  Alternatively, they could set up more formal dining in the back and then use the entire narrow front room as living space.  The island is their casual dining space.  Why stage 3 eating areas - and stage them all poorly, IMHO?

 

Noticed the same thing about the beds, laredhead.  When you shove them in the space in that fashion, you're shouting to buyers that the space is too small.  Sometimes it's best to simply work with the windows and place the bed under them, leaving them open for more light.  That would have worked well in at least 1 of those rooms, yes, with a lower headboard. 

 

The other bedroom, IMHO, could have been staged as a kids' room, if they decided to target family buyers.  That'd solve the window problem.  (Use either a crib or possibly bunkbeds.)  Or, flip that double bed to the back wall so it's what you see when you walk into the room.  That would have opened up the entire room, IMHO. 

 

Realtor, Weston, IMHO, needs to remove the google streetview that highlights her reno / redevelopment sign.  When buyers search online, they're looking to eliminate properties to save time on actual showings.  More than a few would probably click on by when they see that photo, w/o reading the property details.  Some people are more visual than others.

 

ETA:  Reviewing the photos again, I'd remove the clunky front room table and sub in a tall, open, hopefully glass, shelving system on that wall.  That would open up the entire front room!  Agree, laredhead, it's too narrow for that table. 

 

Use the back room as a nicer, dining space w/shandy.  Also, stage slightly smaller stools so 3 fit at the island.  Set both eating areas, too!  Either the office area and/or basement could house a play space.  Use the mbr sitting area as a home office.  

Edited March 22, 2015 by aguabella

[aguabella]

Albany Park and Irving Park are next to one another, so it's probably close to the border of the two and people who care about it, like this woman, choose to call it one over the other. I'm not up on that area (at all) but unless a ton has changed recently, Irving Park is more gentrified and would command a higher price than Albany Park. So, it's probably technically in Albany Park but she'll call it Irving Park if she can get away with it. It happens in other areas of the city as well, someone lives in Lake View/Wrigleyville and they tell people they live in Lincoln Park, people live in Kenwood but say they live in Hyde Park, etc.

 

Thanks for the info, JasmineFlower.  Yep, that's what I figured they were doing.  The property appears very fringe-ish and I knew that Irving Park was probably preferable from a value standpoint.

[aguabella]

It's neat that Google Streetview shows the house in the pre-reno condition.

 

I've lived in River North, Streeterville, Lakeview and Hyde Park so, from my comparatively snobby Chicago credentials, I don't know that it matters too much whether a house is in "Albany Park" as opposed to "Irving Park" since neither has any particular cache among Chicago neighborhoods.  (No disrespect meant to anyone who lives there.)  I agree, though, that Irving Park is probably a little preferable.  The listing on the active listing website looks great.  They've staged it well.  Those apartments on the other side are fairly ubiquitous on the North Side of Chicago so I wouldn't worry about them.  You can get that in Lincoln Park or any other tony area of town. 

 

Unfortunately, truther, it doesn't matter that high-rise apt buildings are ubiquitous in the nicer neighborhoods;  it matters that they're the view out the property's front window!  Besides the view, buyers may be concerned about parking and traffic.

 

For staging, I'd use the filmy white sheers and keep the front ones closed.  (P.S.  Can someone please tell them to purchase longer sheers!)

 

Thanks for the neighborhood info, truther.

Edited March 21, 2015 by aguabella

[aguabella]

Update on the Chicago property:  Over the last couple of days, Amy changed her listing to pending or contingent.  Sorry to say but I'm a tad skeptical.  I'm sure she desperately wanted to have it sold by the HH airing to market her investment opportunities.  Or, did HH push her over the finish line?

 

(Snip)

 

Don't know about you guys but I'm slightly offended by her use of HH to promote her personal brand.  I'm not interested in watching "Investment Hunters" or "MLM Hunters".

 

 

 

I apologize if I confused anyone with my word "skeptical", above.  I didn't mean to imply that Amy won't sell her property.  In fact, I meant to explain that when I first checked the status of her listings after HH, her blog, IIRC, indicated that a Lincoln Park duplex down was "Sold" but Belle Plaine was "active".  Then, approximately 24 hours later, the positions were reversed.

 

As mentioned previously, Amy listed at $525K on 12/2.  She reduced by only $6K on 1/31 but then got below the 5's a few days later by going to $499,900 on 2/3, IIRC.  Wouldn't surprise me if Amy overshot that $135K reno budget and is undercapitalized.  She hesitated to make the price reduction b/c of the budget overage (IMHO) but bottom line, she needs cash!

 

She has huge incentive at this point in time to market herself, i.e. her seminars and investment opportunity to bring in quick $$$.  In fact, on her business' FB, the first entry after the episode, again IIRC, wasn't about the after-party photos or frivolity.  It was an investment solicitation, including that 12% ROI.

 

When viewers see her HH episode and find her blog plus the listing information, she wants a huge SOLD plastered over that property's photos and information!  If that property, her feature project, is sitting on the market, nearing 120 days listed, including nearly 9 months of carrying costs, should we invest with her???

 

Also, keep in mind that investment properties have higher carrying costs, including significantly higher downpayment requirements and interest rates.  Off the top of my head, she must be past 400K on her total investment, all-in.

 

Anyway, again, sorry if it wasn't clear.  "skeptical" referred to the presto - change-o on the statuses of those 2 properties, not her chances to sell/close.  Also, initially, her blog was basically discussing them, as if they were her only 2 properties.  (With possibly 1 add'l Lincoln Park condo to replace the sold unit, BTW.)  Then, a day later, she's marketing her seminars, saying she's purchased 10 properties within the last year and you can, too!  Huh?  8 more properties??  Mmm-kay ...

 

Edited March 23, 2015 by aguabella

[aguabella]

The Detroit couple are now on my list of least favorite HH's.  They were very unpleasant and didn't seem to have much respect for each other.  If they are not that way in real life, they certainly gave that impression to millions of people.  If it was an act, it wasn't very funny and I would be embarassed to be portrayed like that.  I would think that his job as a new home builder would allow him to purchase something more than a $300,000 house.  I missed her profession if one was given.  He referred to their visit to the place where they were married as returning "to the scene of the crime".  The one they chose looked nice, but it is small.  One of the guests commented at the end that in a few months their child's toys would be taking over the living room, and there wasn't another area for her play.  Maybe they can finish out the basement and make a playroom downstairs.  Seeing her playing on the kitchen floor reminded me that's where my son used to play every evening while I cooked dinner.  I didn't live in a house with an open floor plan where I could see 360 degrees, but we all survived just fine.

 

Totally agree with your post, laredhead.  In fact, I had the same thought about their $300K budget. 

 

The wife mentioned that she teaches grades 5-8 so prob middle school.

 

JMHO but I thought it was obvious they'd previously purchased that home and done the improvements.  IIRC, the guy said something about selling it and moving up in a few years.  (Good luck with that dude - you might want to assume 5 years!)  Plus, he would have connections to contractors.

 

As they toured it, with only a couple of exceptions, the wife praised the finishes.  Thought she'd obviously selected them and just threw in a couple of decoys for the viewers!

 

Have to say, the guy did a good job holding down the reno expenses, thinking about flipping it.  (BTW, I thought the basement issue was the episode's red herring.)  He obviously has connections to contractors so I figured they'd do a reno - and then, House 3, they'd done it, IMHO! 

 

Agree about all the personal issues.  He came off as incredibly uptight.  The wife (and her voice) were totally annoying.

 

Everybody like her line on that first house?  "Is this the kitchen?"  Uh, yeah, Sherlock, lol!

 

And the tile "surrounding the mantel" is gorgeous simply b/c it's old!  (I missed that - I assumed someone added the marble surround.  Yes, the floor tile was vintage but ...  ??)

 

Nice memory of your son, laredhead.  Thanks ...

Edited March 22, 2015 by aguabella

[aguabella]

Ha, I thought that third Detroit-area house looked familiar--boy do those bathrooms look different! Found out today I know a previous owner. Let's just say that two kids somehow got raised there. And to the best of my knowledge, there are no bodies in the walls of the basement, asswipe.

 

That looked like an incredible street, buttersister.  Don't know if I'm correct but that particular home, however, seemed smaller than some of the others.  Also, the lot made me feel claustrophobic and seemed much smaller than the typical 1950 lot size.  Felt as if the builder had sandwiched it in amongst those trees.

 

No offense to your friends but I had the impression the guy was following the RE rule of buying what he considered the worst house in the neighborhood and then doing a mid-range reno to flip it.  (JMHO but I believe they'd done the work before filming the episode.)  I'm sure he was putting on about the basement b/c the new home (with its awful finishes and builder special features) didn't have one.

 

Bet it was a terrific home for your friends and a great neighborhood to grow up in!

Edited March 22, 2015 by aguabella

[truther]

Unfortunately, truther, it doesn't matter that high-rise apt buildings are ubiquitous in the nicer neighborhoods;  it matters that they're the view out the property's front window!  Besides the view, buyers may be concerned about parking and traffic.

 

I hear you, but those aren't highrises.  They're just 3-story walkups with garden apartments.  They're literally on every street.  Nobody buying 3224 W Belle Plaine would expect any kind of view because it's just a single-family home in the city.  It'll get sun thanks to being on the north side of the street.  Then the view out the front is of a pleasant tree-lined street with typical well-maintained homes on the other side.  I don't think anyone looking to buy in Chicago would think twice about those buildings, if that makes sense.   . 

[JasmineFlower]

Unfortunately, truther, it doesn't matter that high-rise apt buildings are ubiquitous in the nicer neighborhoods;  it matters that they're the view out the property's front window!  Besides the view, buyers may be concerned about parking and traffic.

 

This would not be a big deal at all in Chicago. There's mid-rise and 3 and 4-flat buildings in every neighborhood. It's part of the deal with living in the city, if you don't want to have buildings across the street or nearby, typically you need to take it to the suburbs (and I don't mean anything close in either, Oak Park and Evanston have them as well, for instance). The view is not something people are concerned about in the city, unless it's about a having a view of the city or the lake, again, just part of city living in Chicago. But parking and traffic because a condo buildings are in the neighborhood are not common complaints as a reason to not buy. If parking is an issue in a neighborhood, it's an issue regardless, same with traffic, it's going to be there with or without the condos or apartment buildings.

Edited March 22, 2015 by JasmineFlower

[biakbiak]

just part of city living in Chicago.

 

Or a ton of cities. I live in SF and my friend just bought a lovely place in an an ugly ass building for a ridiculous sum but as he joked "I get to stare at those two  gorgeous  Victorians they have to look at this dump," given that one of the flats in that Victorian across the street went for $1.5 million having to look at ugly isn't going to stop resale in cities.

 

As for the Chicago house hunter I think the furniture is just to big for the space especially in the living/dining area  where you since she finished the basement you could do a lot with that space without that huge sectional and clunky table and chairs. Also, in two of the bedrooms you could easily have at least a queen away from the wall and not covering a window they just had it there to take a more appealing photo that could get the bed and night stand from a good angle with the best light.

 

The kitchen was fairly neutral but she also got a lot of cabinets and usefully counterspace in not a huge area.

Edited March 22, 2015 by biakbiak

[buttersister]

Don't know if I'm correct but that particular home, however, seemed smaller than some of the others.

aguabella, it's a mix of large and small homes on that block. Like in most of those closer-to-city burbs, the space between the houses is minimal. To put it politely!

 

I get to stare at those two  gorgeous  Victorians they have to look at this dump--Ha!

[aguabella]

Or a ton of cities. I live in SF and my friend just bought a lovely place in an an ugly ass building for a ridiculous sum but as he joked "I get to stare at those two  gorgeous  Victorians they have to look at this dump," given that one of the flats in that Victorian across the street went for $1.5 million having to look at ugly isn't going to stop resale in cities.

 

 

 

You probably used the $1.5M figure to impress;  in SF, no disrespect to your friend but that would be considered a minor property to many if not most people. 

 

And, more importantly, who said that these minor issues will "stop resale" in cities?  Say, what???  That's a huge leap.

 

When I consider these minor issues, I consider them from an appraisal standpoint.  So, that means, all factors being equal, would a buyer prefer the home fronting on the concrete jungle or the tree lined street?  I suspect that an identical home on the tree lined street might sell slightly faster than the home fronting the concrete jungle.

 

If/when you're hurting for cash and need to reduce / eliminate carrying costs, it can matter to a seller.

 

JMHO

[aguabella]

I hear you, but those aren't highrises.  They're just 3-story walkups with garden apartments.  They're literally on every street.  Nobody buying 3224 W Belle Plaine would expect any kind of view because it's just a single-family home in the city.  It'll get sun thanks to being on the north side of the street.  Then the view out the front is of a pleasant tree-lined street with typical well-maintained homes on the other side.  I don't think anyone looking to buy in Chicago would think twice about those buildings, if that makes sense.   . 

 

So, checking out the satellite view, I can purchase on that block of Belle Plaine and view the concrete jungle out my window.  Or, on the next street over, directly behind that Belle Plaine address, I could possibly find the exact same home, same approximate age, same builder and the same neighborhood! The second home's front window view, however, is all tree-line street with no concrete jungle in sight. 

 

Yay, if, as a buyer, I purchase the 2nd home, my sheers can stay open!  And, without a garage or small garage and multiple drivers at home but no mid-rise apartment buildings across the street, I'm fighting with at least 20 or 30 fewer residents for the same, limited number of street parking spaces!

 

Hmmm, which home will sell first?  They might sell for the exact same $$$ amount but shaving a month off the carrying costs of an individual investor like Amy who appears undercapitalized - could be a big deal.

 

JMHO

 

 

ETA:  Bottom line, there's a reason (or probably a few) that tptb didn't do a 360 with the camera and show us those buildings!

Edited March 23, 2015 by aguabella

[Neurochick]

I just want to say, if you think House Hunters can be annoying, trying "My City's Not That Into Me."  It's on the FYI channel and I'm surprised it doesn't have its own thread yet because there's plenty of snark available.

[WendyCR72]

I think aesthetics are dependent on many factors - be it views, space, or whatever. Dependent on where one wants to live, a la city versus country versus beach. And dependent on the person's socioeconomic range. Of course things aren't problems until they are, but that's the price a prospective homeowner pays.  :-)

 

It's why house hunting is always a challenge.

[aguabella]

Update on the Chicago property:  Over the last couple of days, Amy changed her listing to pending or contingent.  Sorry to say but I'm a tad skeptical.  I'm sure she desperately wanted to have it sold by the HH airing to market her investment opportunities.  Or, did HH push her over the finish line?

 

(Snip)

 

Don't know about you guys but I'm slightly offended by her use of HH to promote her personal brand.  I'm not interested in watching "Investment Hunters" or "MLM Hunters".

 

 

 

I apologize if I confused anyone with my word "skeptical", above.  I didn't mean to imply that Amy won't sell her property.  In fact, I meant to explain that when I first checked the status of her listings after HH, her blog, IIRC, indicated that a Lincoln Park duplex down was "Sold" but Belle Plaine was "active".  Then, approximately 24 hours later, the positions were reversed.  What happened to the duplex's sale?

 

As mentioned previously, Amy listed at $525K on 12/2.  She reduced by only $6K on 1/31 but then got below the 5's a few days later by going to $499,900 on 2/3, IIRC.  Wouldn't surprise me if Amy overshot that $135K reno budget and is undercapitalized.  She hesitated to make the price reduction b/c of the budget overage (IMHO) but bottom line, she needs cash!

 

She has huge incentive at this point in time to market herself, i.e. her seminars and investment opportunity to bring in quick $$$.  In fact, on her business' FB, the first entry after the episode, again IIRC, wasn't about the after-party photos or frivolity.  It was an investment solicitation, including that 12% ROI.

 

When viewers see her HH episode and find her blog plus the listing information, she wants a huge SOLD plastered over that property's photos and information!  If that property, her feature project, is sitting on the market, nearing 120 days listed, including nearly 9 months of carrying costs, should we invest with her???

 

Also, keep in mind that investment properties have higher carrying costs, including significantly higher downpayment requirements and interest rates.  Off the top of my head, she must be past 400K on her total investment, all-in.  Cash-wise, we could be talking about a 40% dp and 4% interest rate, assuming she has the best investor rates.

 

Anyway, again, sorry if it wasn't clear.  "skeptical" referred to the presto - change-o on the statuses of those 2 properties, not her chances to sell/close.  Also, initially, her blog was basically discussing them, as if they were her only 2 properties.  (With possibly 1 add'l Lincoln Park condo to replace the sold unit, BTW.)  Then, a day later, she's marketing her seminars, saying she's purchased 10 properties within the last year and you can, too!  Huh?  8 more properties??  Mmm-kay ...

 

 

Oops, it must be Monday!  Intended to "Reply" to my previous post and accidentally hit "Edit".

Edited March 23, 2015 by aguabella

[aguabella]

I think aesthetics are dependent on many factors - be it views, space, or whatever. Dependent on where one wants to live, a la city versus country versus beach. And dependent on the person's socioeconomic range. Of course things aren't problems until they are, but that's the price a prospective homeowner pays.  :-)

 

It's why house hunting is always a challenge.

 

Agree, WendyCR72 but when we get into the socioeconomic factors that affect buyers, we're delving into macro issues, IMHO.  Those factors explain why a relatively small flat in SF sells for more than $1.5M!

 

Also, it's why, when I consider these things, I'm holding all those factors constant and assuming the homes are adjacent and/or very close, same size, condition, etc...

Edited March 23, 2015 by aguabella

[aguabella]

aguabella, it's a mix of large and small homes on that block. Like in most of those closer-to-city burbs, the space between the houses is minimal. To put it politely!

 

I know what you mean, buttersister, but that can vary in cities, depending on zoning and the development paths, etc.

 

Yes, I noticed some huge, beautiful homes on that street.  What's the average age of the homes on that street or block, if you know? 

 

Was your friend's home considered infill when it was built, in 1950, IIRC?  Did someone subdivide that lot?

 

Sorry to pepper you with questions.  It was a cute home and I'm sure uptight-RE-new construction dude made a wise choice.

 

Wonder if he promised his wife they'll go for the monster suburban new home on the next go-round with all the latest bells and whistles.  (I think she wanted them, too, BTW!)  But next time, they'll select their own lot plus 100% of the finishes.  Did anyone ever tell him that's the point of buying new construction, lol?  Doubt they could have found a less attractive new home in all of the Detroit metro area than the one they toured, IMHO.

Edited March 23, 2015 by aguabella

[laredhead]

Neurochick, what is the premise of "My City's Not That Into Me"?  The title sounds strange.

[aguabella]

This would not be a big deal at all in Chicago. There's mid-rise and 3 and 4-flat buildings in every neighborhood. It's part of the deal with living in the city, if you don't want to have buildings across the street or nearby, typically you need to take it to the suburbs (and I don't mean anything close in either, Oak Park and Evanston have them as well, for instance). The view is not something people are concerned about in the city, unless it's about a having a view of the city or the lake, again, just part of city living in Chicago. But parking and traffic because a condo buildings are in the neighborhood are not common complaints as a reason to not buy. If parking is an issue in a neighborhood, it's an issue regardless, same with traffic, it's going to be there with or without the condos or apartment buildings.

 

Again, who said anything about reasons to "not buy"?

 

So, views don't matter until they do?  Or, until you have one?  Assuming identical everything except for the front window view, does the home that fronts on the waste disposal center sell faster than the home directly behind it on the next block over?  (That's an extreme example, obviously.  Yes, they both could be affected by smells and increased commercial traffic, too, BTW.)  

 

Parking and traffic are "not" common complaints?  City redevelopment agencies do parking and traffic studies routinely - b/c they are, indeed, common complaints, IMHO.  Plus, it's typically a simple numerical calculation.  On this tree-lined block, x number of drivers compete for the same number of spots that (x + y) drivers compete for on the next block over. 

 

Picking up on the "not buy" theme, how many buyers select a suburban home to avoid said parking and traffic?  If it's going to be the same w/o adding another y# of drivers from a new condo project, why do cities conduct those studies, typically counting the cars that pass through major intersections during commute hours?  Zoning and these types of issues are the reason redevelopment agencies exist, IMHO.

 

Again, holding all other factors constant, we can make assumptions WRT which home might sell a few weeks faster or for just a few hundred dollars more.

 

If/when your personal investor $$$ are tied up in that house, you care about these issues, IMHO.  I have a feeling Amy appreciated the fact that tptb didn't do a 360 with that camera.  Or, she may have stopped that shot by batting her eyelashes at someone!

 

All, JMHO

Edited March 23, 2015 by aguabella

[WendyCR72]

A lot of assumptions can be inferred. But let us remember House Hunters likes to let its producers create drama, so I wouldn't really look to this show as any sort of housing Litmus test, anyway.

[aguabella]

A lot of assumptions can be inferred. But let us remember House Hunters likes to let its producers create drama, so I wouldn't really look to this show as any sort of housing Litmus test, anyway.

 

Litmus test for ???  No worries, WendyCR72.  I had already stepped off my overall HH soapbox.  And, probably everyone knows my feelings about fakity-fake HH drama so no need to climb on that one, either!  Thanks, Wendy.

[slasherboy]

Just watched Kevin looking for a modern high-rise in Chicago.  He chose condo #3 which didn't allow pets and he had a dog named Terry.  I missed when he was saying why  he chose this option (I was on the phone and couldn't hear) yet at the end when he was putting together his furniture, Terry was wandering around.  Anybody know the scoop on this?  Thanks!

[DaveA]

Pets were not allowed on the roof top deck and pool area.  They are allowed in the condo itself.

[buttersister]

I noticed some huge, beautiful homes on that street.  What's the average age of the homes on that street or block, if you know?

Was your friend's home considered infill when it was built, in 1950, IIRC?  Did someone subdivide that lot?

Sorry to pepper you with questions.  It was a cute home and I'm sure uptight-RE-new construction dude made a wise choice.

I dug around a bit and confirmed that the block has houses built in 1940, 1950 and 1962. The '40's house is 2800 sq. ft. with 5 bedrooms and sold last June for the same price as HH couple paid for my pal's place! The 1962 house is 1600 sq. ft. with 200 more sq. ft. in their lot, but a one-car garage, as opposed to her two-car garage (which they didn't show). Go figure.

 

why  he chose this option

I think he liked the space and THE VIEW. The bedroom turned out to be his favorite room because VIEW. Turns out the doorman was a red herring (gosh) and the brownstone was for his friend--heh, probably what she bought.

Edited March 24, 2015 by buttersister

[KLovestoShop]

Had no idea you could get anything decent in downtown Chicago for so little. When I heard Kevin's budget, I thought I'd see some totally crappy 300sqft place in a dangerous neighborhood.

Could any of you live in a pseudo hotel room for the long term? No me. I like to cook.

"Hello Kevin" from a non existent doorman. That was such a stupid red herring request.

[biakbiak]

You probably used the $1.5M figure to impress; in SF, no disrespect to your friend but that would be considered a minor property to many if not most people.

No, I didn't use the figure to impress, I merely stated it as a fact , having lived in SF almost 20 years I am well aware how much property costs and so I also know that the place in question actually went for above market price for a one bedroom of its size and the condition it was in, my point was simply that for many people a view of an apartment building or location to an apartment buildings are not a downside just a fact of city living.

There is no way in hell I could live in that first hotel room space. I mean the only sink was a fairly small bathroom sink, I wouldn't even want to wash more than a glass in so it would be all takeout in containers or room service. I don't think I could even handle it as a weekend getaway spot.

Edited March 24, 2015 by biakbiak

[Neurochick]

Neurochick, what is the premise of "My City's Not That Into Me"?  The title sounds strange.

 

I sent you the link for that show.  I think there's some full episodes there.  It is a strange one.

[truther]

So, checking out the satellite view, I can purchase on that block of Belle Plaine and view the concrete jungle out my window.  Or, on the next street over, directly behind that Belle Plaine address, I could possibly find the exact same home, same approximate age, same builder and the same neighborhood! The second home's front window view, however, is all tree-line street with no concrete jungle in sight. 

 

Yay, if, as a buyer, I purchase the 2nd home, my sheers can stay open!  And, without a garage or small garage and multiple drivers at home but no mid-rise apartment buildings across the street, I'm fighting with at least 20 or 30 fewer residents for the same, limited number of street parking spaces!

 

Hmmm, which home will sell first?  They might sell for the exact same $$$ amount but shaving a month off the carrying costs of an individual investor like Amy who appears undercapitalized - could be a big deal.

 

JMHO

 

 

ETA:  Bottom line, there's a reason (or probably a few) that tptb didn't do a 360 with the camera and show us those buildings!

I get what you're saying about parking and traffic, and I don't want to just go around in circles on this, so I'll just respond with a few comments.  You asked Chicagoans what they made of the buildings immediately around her home.  I and a few others explained that they're not a big deal.  They're not highrises, or mid-rise apartments, or a concrete jungle.  They're just 3-flats, a ubiquitous presence in the city.  Look at Warner, the street immediately to the north of Belle Plaine.  No investor is going to worry about them at all.  Her house has a single-car garage in the back that opens onto the alleyway, so she's got her own covered parking space.  I'd be concerned that it's only 1 space instead of the more common 2-car garage, and don't know why they went that route (didn't see the ep), but that's a different issue.  The house has a nice little yard out the back.  Anyone buying it will look out that way and not onto the street.  You don't want to be in the city having everyone seeing into your street-level living room at night so again, the view isn't an issue.  And to a Chicagoan it's a rather nice view.  It is the city, after all. 

[JasmineFlower]

Had no idea you could get anything decent in downtown Chicago for so little. When I heard Kevin's budget, I thought I'd see some totally crappy 300sqft place in a dangerous neighborhood.

Could any of you live in a pseudo hotel room for the long term? No me. I like to cook.

"Hello Kevin" from a non existent doorman. That was such a stupid red herring request.

 

You can can much more than he did for $175k. I understood why he chose that, but I thought they were odd options indeed that he chose to look at (or maybe, that they chose to show). Not sure what gave you the impression you couldn't get a one bedroom for his budget in a non-shady neighborhood, but you can do a lot better on his budget than what he got. That was a glorified studio and was tight, tight, tight for Chicago. It's a place I would justify in NYC but is a big no in Chicago. And even for what he said he wanted, his friends were on top of one another in that final scene in his place. You can get a few hundred sqft more than he did for his budget, or he could have gotten a 2 bedroom (though it may still only have 1 bath). I was watching the episode thinking, he should've looked a little harder to find more space that better fit the things he said he wanted.

 

He was a strange one, wanting a doorman to say "Hello Kevin" and then with very practical requests like a garbage disposal and a nice size front closet to put bulky winter stuff in. Not crazy about how small the place he chose is, but just happy he wasn't swayed by the amenities of the hotel apartment. Felt like a place someone who comes in regularly for business should buy not a full-timer.

[aguabella]

I'd be concerned that it's only 1 space instead of the more common 2-car garage, and don't know why they went that route (didn't see the ep), but that's a different issue. 

 

 

Anyone buying it will look out that way and not onto the street.  You don't want to be in the city having everyone seeing into your street-level living room at night so again, the view isn't an issue. 

 

I (obviously) previously typed "high rise" in error so that's never been at issue.  Don't know why you continue repeating that.

 

Agree, the parking's insufficient for the most likely residents, i.e. 2-3 professionals.  Ok, yep, actually insufficient for most, if not all, residents.

 

Yes, the view isn't at issue b/c it's nonexistent and the front window is useless.

 

As previously indicated, it's not surprising tptb never did a 360 with the camera.

Edited March 24, 2015 by aguabella

[aguabella]

No, I didn't use the figure to impress, I merely stated it as a fact , having lived in SF almost 20 years I am well aware how much property costs and so I also know that the place in question actually went for above market price for a one bedroom of its size and the condition it was in, my point was simply that for many people a view of an apartment building or location to an apartment buildings are not a downside just a fact of city living.

 

 

Your example is n/a from an appraisal standpoint so the sale details don't matter.  You snipped the remainder of my post, including a succinct explanation of the appraisal issue.  No need to supplement that explanation, above.  Nobody claimed that such minor differences would "stop resale" (your words, not mine, BTW) in cities.  

Edited March 26, 2015 by aguabella

[aguabella]

I dug around a bit and confirmed that the block has houses built in 1940, 1950 and 1962. The '40's house is 2800 sq. ft. with 5 bedrooms and sold last June for the same price as HH couple paid for my pal's place! The 1962 house is 1600 sq. ft. with 200 more sq. ft. in their lot, but a one-car garage, as opposed to her two-car garage (which they didn't show). Go figure.

 

I think he liked the space and THE VIEW. The bedroom turned out to be his favorite room because VIEW. Turns out the doorman was a red herring (gosh) and the brownstone was for his friend--heh, probably what she bought.

 

Thanks for the info, buttersister!  It definitely confirms my thinking about the street.  Interesting - it was obviously a nice area!

 

I thought they had a garage, too.  Have been wondering the same thing, recently - I don't understand why tptb ignore the existence of garages, especially in the Midwest or other areas with extreme weather issues.

 

ETA:  Always makes me wonder what they're hiding in said garage.  We know on HHI that it's all the participants' stuff!

 

Agree with you about the Chicago episode, too.  Yes, that must have been his friend's place!  Yeah, doorman - whatever, Show.

 

So the Raffaello got their promo spot, huh?  That was an obvious decoy.  Wonder if he works there (property management).  Could explain his HH application, besides the proverbial 15 minutes.

Edited March 24, 2015 by aguabella

[buttersister]

That would tie it up nicely!

As previously indicated, it's not surprising tptb never did a 360 with the camera.

One of my favorite of those moments is the place that got bought here--they had a problem with the view and the camera only pointed in one direction. After they "chose here" there was a shot in the same direction, camera panning up. Hello, cityscape! Goodbye, "problem."

[laredhead]

Houston HH episode last night was more of buyers purchasing for the purpose of investing and flipping fairly soon.  She reminded me a little of the woman on Flip or Flop.  He was pure eye candy, IMVHO.  Would be interesting to see the finished product and maybe they will be featured on a future where are they now episode.  Jut removing the wall between the kitchen and dining room was a big improvement.

[laredhead]

Anyone see the Davenport, Iowa episode last night?  Seems like there are a lot of houses to be had for little money there if you have enough money left over to restore them.  The first one the couple looked at could be fabulous with enough money for restoration.  That staircase was incredible.  

[peggy06]

Anyone see the Davenport, Iowa episode last night?  Seems like there are a lot of houses to be had for little money there if you have enough money left over to restore them.  The first one the couple looked at could be fabulous with enough money for restoration.  That staircase was incredible.  

Laredhead, I got so excited when they started touring that house. I love old houses, and that main floor was just beautiful. When they went down to the kitchen, I became less enthused. I think the kitchen was downstairs from the living room, right? That in itself is odd and not very convenient, as well as the many many stairs. But if someone restored that house, it could be a real showplace. Just not that livable.

 

Oh, I also loved the back yard in that first house.

 

Kudos to HH for going to an old Mississippi river town, a change from the usual locales.

[laredhead]

peggy06, I agree that the main floor was the prettiest one in that house.  When the house was built, kitchen were utilitarian only and hired help would have been the people who used the kitchen, unlike today where the kitchen has become a room where the entire family gathers.  Given enough money, that place could be fabulous.  I wonder about the economy of Davenport and the viability of the older sections of the town because in one shot, there was a huge Victorian looking house that was boarded up and some of the yards looked a bit shaggy.  It was definitely a nice change from the usual locales.

[DownTheShore]

It was great to see a new locale.

Please God, no more Atlanta, Nashville, Austin, or military families buying their first home. Nothing against military families, but they all have 3-4 kids, need a house with bedrooms for all of them, need a neighborhood with similar families, don't want either an old home or a lot of remodeling work. So they all wind up buying in generic, recently-built neighborhoods, and all the houses have that mini-McMansion-look where the outside looks nice but all the interior rooms look undersized.

[aguabella]

That would tie it up nicely!

One of my favorite of those moments is the place that got bought here--they had a problem with the view and the camera only pointed in one direction. After they "chose here" there was a shot in the same direction, camera panning up. Hello, cityscape! Goodbye, "problem."

 

A connection to the Raffaello wouldn't surprise me, buttersister.  Sounds to me like tptb are having a tougher time finding decoy houses - the realtors know there's nothing in it for them.

 

You know it!  If the camera didn't film it, it doesn't exist!

[aguabella]

Houston HH episode last night was more of buyers purchasing for the purpose of investing and flipping fairly soon.  She reminded me a little of the woman on Flip or Flop.  He was pure eye candy, IMVHO.  Would be interesting to see the finished product and maybe they will be featured on a future where are they now episode.  Jut removing the wall between the kitchen and dining room was a big improvement.

 

It's my understanding the Galleria's a great area so I'm sure they'll do very well on that awful condo, especially if they keep it as a rental.  You couldn't pay me to buy it, however!  It was obviously a 70's apartment conversion, meaning thin walls and cheap construction, IMHO. 

 

It had interior hallways, no balconies or outdoor space (besides the common area) and I'm sorry, realtor lady - that was a 1 bedroom, not a 2!  (The den had no 2nd egress point.)  I don't recommend less than 2 bedroom investment properties so that'd take it off my list, before even noticing the other issues.

 

Did a quick check online and noticed tons of them for sale, currently, including a fixer on an upper floor for 120K.  (She paid 130K for a lower floor, IIRC.)  Didn't search for updated units, however.  Yes, they were built in 1970!

 

What was up with that realtor telling her the fixer with the bars on at least 2 of its windows was a great investment?  They said it seriously and the buyer confirmed that she believed her!  Ugh!  (Anybody else notice that - were they for real???)

 

That's why I'm sure she'll do fine in the Galleria area:  location, location, location.

Edited March 28, 2015 by aguabella