Real Estate in your city

[sopas ej]

From realtor.com:

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt Purchases $61M Estate in Los Angeles

By Claudine Zap
May 28, 2021

The former CEO of Google Eric Schmidt has purchased a swanky Los Angeles estate. He picked up the historic home for $61.5 million, Dirt reported, while noting that the prodigious price marks it as the second-highest priced sale in the state this year.

The mansion was listed in 2020 for $75 million, so the multibillionaire was able to score a deal. A discounted price doesn’t discount the home’s storied history.

The manor was built by the celebrated Black architect Paul R. Williams in 1936, for the businessman Jacob “Jay” Paley, who paid about $100,000. Built in a grand English Georgian style, the property is set on over 2.5 acres and spans 15,000 square feet.

After Paley’s death in the 1960s, the business magnate and hotelier Barron Hilton purchased the place for the equivalent of $4 million, and lived there until his death in 2019, according to Architectural Digest.

His son and grandson, Rick Hilton and Barron N. Hilton, of the real estate brokerage Hilton and Hyland, represented the listing. And yes, the two are also Paris Hilton’s dad and brother. Linda May, also with Hilton and Hyland, repped the buyer.

Paris has a connection to the home as well, as it served as the site of a photo shoot in 2000 for Vanity Fair, the New York Post pointed out.


Eric Schmidt’s new home buy (Realtor.com)

The trophy property comes with 13 bedrooms and 17 bathrooms. Original details are still visible throughout the residence. The grand entertaining spaces feature coffered ceilings, delicate moldings, and eye-catching paneling. Gorgeous rooms include a sunken living room, dining room, billiard-room, and den.

A commercial kitchen can handle large-scale entertaining, and adjoins a Williams trademark circular breakfast room for casual dining.

The upper level, accessed by a dramatic staircase or by elevator, holds two main suites, each with a dressing room, bathroom and garden view.

Two more bedrooms and an expanded suite complete the second floor.

Outside, the lush grounds offer secluded gardens, reflecting pools, fountains, and specimen trees. They also include a pool with decorative tile work, a Moderne-inspired poolhouse, and a sunken tennis court. The property is entered by two motor courts and offers privacy behind wrought-iron gates.

Schmidt, 66, has a net worth of $21 billion, so he’s easily able to amass a primo property portfolio. He has owned enviable California real estate in Silicon Valley, coastal Montecito, and a mansion in L.A.’s Holmby Hills, as well as a $15 million penthouse in New York City, according to a 2015 write-up in Business Insider.

When he wasn’t buying high-end properties, Schmidt served as Google’s CEO from 2001 to 2011. After leaving that position, he continued to sit on the board of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, until 2019, and then maintained a role as a technical adviser at Alphabet through 2020.

Link: https://www.realtor.com/news/celebri...ngeles-estate/

[Wigs]

Niagara/Hamilton/Halton/Greater Toronto Area real estate markets are too hot



RobGolfi.com

[dave8721]

A year in the life of the median sale price in Miami-Dade County, what a difference a year makes:
5/2020: $375,714
6/2020: $388,500
7/2020: $410,000
8/2020: $416,000
9/2020: $435,000
10/2020: $435,000
11/2020: $450,000
12/2020: $455,000
1/2021: $469,500
2/2021: $450,000
3/2021: $491,250
4/2021: $515,000

[JMKeynes]

Chicago is an AMAZING city, but its greatest assets among the top U.S. cities (NY, SF, LA, Boston) is that it’s REALLY CHEAP compared to NY and SF, in particular.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

Chicago is an AMAZING city, but its greatest assets among the top U.S. cities (NY, SF, LA, Boston) is that it’s REALLY CHEAP compared to NY and SF, in particular.

People on SSP keep saying this, and I have no idea what they're smoking. Chicago has high property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, gas taxes, and the same prices on consumer goods as everywhere else. Going out is the same as in any big city. RE is a significant underperformer.

If the answer is "homes in sprawl are plentiful and cheap", that's true almost everywhere in the Sunbelt, except the Sunbelt doesn't have the same regulatory, tax and weather issues, and the returns on the sprawlbox will be better.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Crawford

People on SSP keep saying this, and I have no idea what they're smoking. Chicago has high property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, gas taxes, and the same prices on consumer goods as everywhere else. Going out is the same as in any big city. RE is a significant underperformer.

If the answer is "homes in sprawl are plentiful and cheap", that's true almost everywhere in the Sunbelt, except the Sunbelt doesn't have the same regulatory, tax and weather issues, and the returns on the sprawlbox will be better.

I mean, you can look at any cost of living index if you don't believe Chicago is cheaper than west coast or east coast, but:

- property taxes are priced in, as is appreciation. IMO you're better off buying a cheaper non-appreciative home and putting your money in investments that are better on average. Besides, many people rent, and rent IS cheaper here (which tells you that housing is also cheaper, since to first order they track each other).
- income taxes are lower than CA or NY
- sales taxes are a small factor for people who aren't poor
- gas tax is irrelevant if you don't drive (or don't drive much)

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by Crawford

People on SSP keep saying this, and I have no idea what they're smoking. Chicago has high property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, gas taxes, and the same prices on consumer goods as everywhere else. Going out is the same as in any big city. RE is a significant underperformer.

If the answer is "homes in sprawl are plentiful and cheap", that's true almost everywhere in the Sunbelt, except the Sunbelt doesn't have the same regulatory, tax and weather issues, and the returns on the sprawlbox will be better.

Chicago is a fraction of the cost of Manhattan. You can buy a very nice two bedroom apartment in Chicago in a very nice building for $700,000. The same apartment in Manhattan would cost $3m.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

Chicago is a fraction of the cost of Manhattan. You can buy a very nice two bedroom apartment in Chicago in a very nice building for $700,000. The same apartment in Manhattan would cost $3m.

$700k would still be on the higher end of the market in Chicago. Likely new(er) construction. There are nice two bedroom condos and townhouses in hip areas for $600k and under. There are older resales for the same product under $450k.

There are certainly perceived and legitimate issues depressing real estate prices, but nothing you don't see elsewhere. Those who've lived here are probably easier to get back, but Americans who were not raised or lived in the Midwest tend to have very strong opinions on what it means to live in the Midwest.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

$700k would still be on the higher end of the market in Chicago. Likely new(er) construction. There are nice two bedroom condos and townhouses in hip areas for $600k and under. There are older resales for the same product under $450k.

Hell, we have an esteemed member of this very forum who recently purchased a 2-bed 1,200SF condo in the loop for ~$300K!!!

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Hell, we have an esteemed member of this very forum who very recently purchased a 2-bed 1,200SF condo in the loop for ~$300K!!!

and you still sort of can (though the inventory is way down compared to the fall and I had to up the max HOA filter to $700, which is indeed quite high, depending on what you get with it).

https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sal...oom%22%3A16%7D

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

$700k would still be on the higher end of the market in Chicago. Likely new(er) construction. There are nice two bedroom condos and townhouses in hip areas for $600k and under. There are older resales for the same product under $450k.

That's true. NY is dramatically more expensive that Chicago, which adds to the allure of the Windy City.

[ChiMIchael]

The COL angle often give me, "I know you like Fruit Loops but Sugar Rings is just the same but cheaper." Some people might go for the bargain, but most people are gonna still prefer the name brand. Sugar Rings have no real identity, therefore not taken seriously at all.

Chicago is in a state where is has/had to start at square one at building it's brand mostly because it's "work hard, roll up your sleeve" brand doesn't work in today economy. I think the city can enjoy a newfound popularity if it is able to find its strengths to create a strong brand.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ChiMIchael

The COL angle often give me, "I know you like Fruit Loops but Sugar Rings is just the same but cheaper." Some people might go for the bargain, but most people are gonna still prefer the name brand.

sure, if fruit loops are $5.39 a box and sugar rings are $3.79 a box, most people will absolutely be persuaded to pay a little bit more for the higher-priced name brand item.

but if fruit loops are $25.00 a box and sugar rings are still only $3.79 a box, then more people might start doing the math.



is that analogy WAY off? i dunno.

you can find 2 bed 1,200 SF condos with HOAs under $1,000/month in the loop for as low as $300K.

according to zillow, the cheapest such unit i could find for sale in midtown with an HOA under $1,000 month was $1.95M.



the cost difference for purchasing like-for-like real estate in the two cities is staggering.

now, this is where crawford always brings up the "but people who already own a box of fruit loops can always trade it in for a slightly more expensive box of fruit loops", and he's absolutely right, but it's a meaningless point for first time home buyers who don't come from wealth.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

People on SSP keep saying this, and I have no idea what they're smoking. Chicago has high property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, gas taxes, and the same prices on consumer goods as everywhere else. Going out is the same as in any big city. RE is a significant underperformer.

So do most places but that doesn't change the fact that pound for pound, Chicago is far more affordable than most cities in its league...and housing is by far the biggest expense for most people.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Hell, we have an esteemed member of this very forum who recently purchased a 2-bed 1,200SF condo in the loop for ~$300K!!!

I did? No I didn't!

[ChiMIchael]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

sure, if fruit loops are $5.39 a box and sugar rings are $3.79 a box, most people will absolutely be persuaded to pay a little bit more for the higher-priced name brand item.

but if fruit loops are $25.00 a box and sugar rings are still only $3.79 a box, then more people might start doing the math.



is that analogy WAY off? i dunno.

you can find 2 bed 1,200 SF condos with HOAs under $1,000/month in the loop for as low as $300K.

according to zillow, the cheapest such unit i could find for sale in midtown with an HOA under $1,000 month was $1.95M.



the cost difference for purchasing like-for-like real estate in the two cities is staggering.

now, this is where crawford always brings up the "but people who already own a box of fruit loops can always trade it in for a slightly more expensive box of fruit loops", and he's absolutely right, but it's a meaningless point for first time home buyers who don't come from wealth.

Fair enough, but my point to more so that if branding is very weak, the COL angle won't make much of an impact.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

So do most places but that doesn't change the fact that pound for pound, Chicago is far more affordable than most cities in its league...and housing is by far the biggest expense for most people.

This point keeps being repeated on SSP, but it isn't true.

Chicago doesn't have lower housing burden (% of income going to housing costs) as other metros. Miami and many FL metros have sky-high housing burden, the Bay Area actually has moderate housing burden. Chicago and Bay Area have very similar housing burden, actually.

You can't just ascertain affordability by looking at housing prices, obviously. You have to look at resale values (the resulting equity is your housing budget), taxes, fees, rents, incomes and the availability of non-market housing.

Just saying "wow, there's a Michigan Ave. condo for 300k and in Palo Alto it would be 1.5 million" doesn't indicate affordability when you're paying 5k in monthlies, and the same unit sold for 300k 20 years ago. That's an extremely unaffordable unit, and any interested buyer should rent instead.

Also, the vast majority of Americans live in suburban SFHs, so that's really the apples-apples cross-metro comparison. Factoring in taxes, fees, maintenance, etc., is a Chicagoland SFH in Arlington Heights or Northbrook notably more affordable than its equivalents across the country?

[Steely Dan]

^ your continued reluctance to acknowledge the fact that many people often speak in verbal shorthand is amusing.

When people on this forum say things like "holy shit Chicago is cheap!" in response to someone posting downtown condo prices, what they really mean is "holy shit, the purchase price for urban residential real estate in Chicago is significantly lower than the purchase price for comparable urban residential real estate in America's other "big 7" urban cities (sans Philly, which seems to be more on chicago's level in this area)".

Whether that makes it a "good deal" or a "bargain" or a "smart investment" or whatever is a different discussion, but the basic fact of urban residential real estate in Chicago being much cheaper to purchase than that of most of its peers cannot be denied.

That is what people mean when they say "Chicago is cheap" or "Philly is cheap". They're not talking about resale value, or a gallon of gasoline, or a McD's cheeseburger, or houses out in fucking schaumburg, they're talking about the relatively low amount of money that is required to purchase urban residential real estate in those two cities.

[mhays]

Crawford misses some major points, no doubt.

One is the importance of trade value. Someone moving from an expensive city can often pay cash in Chicago.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This point keeps being repeated on SSP, but it isn't true.

Chicago doesn't have lower housing burden (% of income going to housing costs) as other metros. Miami and many FL metros have sky-high housing burden, the Bay Area actually has moderate housing burden. Chicago and Bay Area have very similar housing burden, actually.

You can't just ascertain affordability by looking at housing prices, obviously. You have to look at resale values (the resulting equity is your housing budget), taxes, fees, rents, incomes and the availability of non-market housing.

Just saying "wow, there's a Michigan Ave. condo for 300k and in Palo Alto it would be 1.5 million" doesn't indicate affordability when you're paying 5k in monthlies, and the same unit sold for 300k 20 years ago. That's an extremely unaffordable unit, and any interested buyer should rent instead.

Also, the vast majority of Americans live in suburban SFHs, so that's really the apples-apples cross-metro comparison. Factoring in taxes, fees, maintenance, etc., is a Chicagoland SFH in Arlington Heights or Northbrook notably more affordable than its equivalents across the country?

That does not jive with lived reality at all. Nobody is paying 5k in monthlies unless they're living in the penthouse of the Trump tower or something.

My 2 BR loop condo costs me a hair under 2k a month in mortgage + HOA + insurance + taxes + electric (cheap because central air covered by HOA) + internet (gigabit!). For TCO you'd have to add some moderate maintenance cost (on appliances + blower motor + whatever else in unit, anything outside is covered by HOA obviously). Parking would cost more (and be in a garage a block away), but I don't have a car. I'm on an academic payscale so I would not be making significantly more in other places with my current position (academic salaries in Boston/ Bay Area are not appreciably higher than Chicago) . I would never be able to afford to buy a place in Cambridge or SF, much less Manhattan.

The reason housing affordability might LOOK similar is because people will often buy up to what they think they can afford, be it a tiny apartment in Manhatttan or a townhouse in Linlcon Park. You can certainly find places that cost a lot more than mine and probably are nicer in some ways .