Clay Bricks vs Concrete Bricks – What is the Difference?

21 02 2012

All bricks are not created equal and if you are considering buying a home or own a home you may be interested in some of the differences between clay brick and concrete brick, both of which are used extensively in Chicago.

The following excerpts from an article from Bricks inc. explain the differences between these two materials.

Throughout the course of history, brick has been one of the most versatile and widely used materials for construction.  Brick is made by mining clay, a natural material, and creating slurry, which is extruded through a machine.  The end or cap where the brick comes out is referred to as a “pug”.  The pug determines the size and sometimes the texture of the brick.  Once the brick is cut and dried, it is fired in kilns at up to 2,000 degrees.

Brick walls often served as the structure, weather barrier, vapor retarder, insulator, and sometimes the interior finish of a structure.  Brick buildings, up until the introduction of concrete masonry units (CMU), were built by stacking multiple wythes of brick and tying them together.  The wythes of brick supported the load of the structure.  Flemish bond was a common way of tying multiple wythes of brick together.

The advent of Cinder Block in 1917 changed this method of construction.  Now CMU supports the weight of the structure and the brick acts as a veneer to conceal the CMU.

Other advances that helped make clay masonry what it is today was the creation of portland cement.  Portland cement gave mortar much higher compressive strengths, giving a brick wall even more overall strength.

The most significant difference between CMU and brick is how the materials are manufactured.  CMU is made of portland cement and aggregates, usually sand and gravel.  CMU is cured at high humidity and temperatures to create a bond between the cement and aggregates.

The differences in manufacturing and material content give CMU and brick very different physical properties, affecting the units long after they are installed.  CMU will shrink while brick expands.  Therefore, CMU requires control joints while brick requires expansion joints.  Control joints are meant to control the cracking that occurs due to the units shrinking.  Over time the sealant used in control joints must be replaced.  The units must be sealed and the mortar must also contain a sealant; all of which add to its installed cost.  Brick buildings will continue to expand for the first couple of years, ultimately giving them a tighter seal.

The color of brick is dictated by the color and type of clay that is mined.  CMU’s color is based on pigments that are used to paint the units.  Overtime, the weathering these units must incur can fade the pigments.   Clay tends to retain color and structural appeal much longer than cement.

CMU’s physical properties also explain why its absorption rate is different from brick.  CMU is a very porous material and will absorb water at much higher rates than brick.

If you are using brick for decorative purposes, then concrete may be your better option. When it comes to brick shape, concrete is a much more versatile product. Concrete brick comes in a myriad of shapes – from squares and triangles to octagons and trapezoids. Clay, on the other hand, is typically limited to more traditional shapes such as rectangles. Concrete can also be stamped or textured to provide unique visual appeal.

Please consult a qualified Home Inspector for answers to more detailed questions about these materials and how they may relate to a specific property.

Source – Bricks Inc





Chicago Real Estate Market Summary – January 2012

8 02 2012

  January started the new year with mostly positive results. Unit Sales and Units Under Contract increased when compared with January 2011. This seems to have been driven by sales of homes priced under $500,000, as homes priced over $500,000 declined against 2011.

 Inventory Units and Months Of Supply decreased considerably against last year; however, inventories remain high enough to continue to drive median prices down.  Two interesting exceptions were Lincoln Park where January 2012 median prices showed an increase against 2011 and Lakeview which was even in comparison to last year.   

While we seem to be making progress in sales and inventory, pricing will probably be the biggest challenge of 2012

  Jan-12 Jan-11 % +/-
       
Unit Sales – Total 267 233 14.6
Lakeview 69 53 30.2
Lincoln Park 53 46 15.2
Near North 111 109 36.0
Loop 34 25 36.0
       
Unit Sales By Price Point       
0 – $500,000 199 160 24.4
$500,000 – $ 1,000,000 48 50 -4.0
$ 1,000,000 – Up 23 25 -8.0
       
Units Under Contract – Total 416 312 33.3
Lakeview 109 77 41.6
Lincoln Park 80 53 50.9
Near North 174 137 27.0
Loop 53 45 17.8
       
Unit Inventory – Total 3,843 5,451 -29.5
Lakeview 1021 1401 -27.1
Lincoln Park 749 891 -15.9
Near North 1605 2442 -34.3
Loop 468 717 -34.7
       
Inventory (Months Of Supply) 7.0 14.1 -50.4
Lakeview 7.0 14.8 -52.5
Lincoln Park 6.9 13.8 -50.1
Near North 7.2 14.4 -50.4
Loop 6.7 12.6 -46.7
       
Median Pricing – Total 325,000 380,000 -14.5
Lakeview 355,000 355,000     0.0
Lincoln Park 450,000 388,382    15.9
Near North 309,500 385,000   -19.6
Loop 247,850 335,000    -26.2

Source – MREDLLC  (Numbers reflect only properties listed in MLS of Northern Illinois)





A Comparison Of Bank Owned Properties To Non Bank Owned Properties – Lakeview, Lincoln Park And Near North – January 2012

24 01 2012

Bank owned properties continue to be a hot topic in the real estate industry and it is sometimes difficult to tell fact from fiction. Some areas of the country have been devastated by foreclosures and other areas have not been as adversely impacted. The rumors of banks flooding the market with a tsunami of  new foreclosures, has not materialized; however, the rumors continue.

I have attached 3 reports below that show comparisons of Bank Owned Properties to Non Bank Owned Properties by month for the past 2 years, for Near North, Lincoln Park and Lakeview. ( The numbers are pulled directly from the MLS and involve no additional calculations or formulas.)

In December 2011  Bank Owned Properties accounted for 9.2%  of the total homes for sale and unit inventory owned by the banks was 44.2% lower than in December of 2010. Non Bank Owned Properties accounted for 90.8 % of the total inventory in December 2011, which was 27.2% lower than last year.

Unit sales of Bank Owned Properties were 22.5% of the total sales in December 2011 and represented a 35.8% increase over December of 2010. Non Bank Owned Properties represented 77.5% of December 2011 sales and declined 3.1%  from December of 2010.

Median prices of Bank Owned Properties dropped 3.2% in December of 2011 in comparison to December 2010. Non Bank Owned median prices dropped 10.0% during the same time period. Bank Owned Property median prices average 52% lower than Non Bank Owned prices.

Please click on the 3 reports below (enlarge to 100%) for more detailed, printable information. Each report is 2 pages with both graphs and spread sheets.

Unit Sales (Bank, Non Bank)

Unit Inventory (Bank, Non Bank)

Median Pricing (Bank, Non Bank)

Numbers represent properties listed in the Northern Illinois MLS

Source – MREDLLC





Chicago Real Estate Market Summary – December 2011

9 01 2012

After four months of consistent results, Lakeview, Lincoln Park, Near North and the Loop posted very mixed numbers when comparing December 2011 to 2010.

Unit Sales dropped  for the first time since July of 2011, for the combined areas against the same time period last year; however, Lakeview and properties priced $500,000 and under showed increases. Properties priced over $1,000,000 dropped 49.1%.

Units Under Contract increased for all areas, while Inventory Units and Months of Supply  continued dramatic decreases over the same period last year. Inventory levels remain high enough to continue to drive prices down. Median prices in December dropped 18.8% when compared to 2010.

       
  Dec-11 Dec-10 % +/-
       
Unit Sales – Total 352 373  -5.6
Lakeview  76  54   40.7
Lincoln Park  29  40  -27.5
Near North 109 107     1.9
Loop  40  42    -4.8
       
Unit Sales By Price Point       
0 – $500,000 254 243     4.5
$500,000 – $ 1,000,000  73  78    -6.4
$ 1,000,000 – Up  28  55  -49.1
       
Units Under Contract – Total 326 302   7.9
Lakeview  62  45   37.8
Lincoln Park  27  21   28.6
Near North  99  91     8.8
Loop  40  38     5.3
       
Unit Inventory – Total 3,776 5,519 -31.6
Lakeview  744 1017  -26.8
Lincoln Park  363  478  -24.1
Near North  881  1469  -40.0
Loop  330  568  -41.9
       
Inventory (Months Of Supply)  8.8 14.4 -38.8
Lakeview  8.8 18.4  -52.0
Lincoln Park 10.0 17.9  -44.1
Near North  6.7 13.0  -48.6
Loop  5.9 10.6  -43.9
       
Median Pricing – Total 315,000 388,000 -18.8
Lakeview 253,500 322,500  -21.4
Lincoln Park 288,000 351,500  -18.1
Near North 247,000 270,000    -8.5
Loop 211,500 261,250  -19.0

Numbers represent only properties listed in the MLS of Northern Illinois.

SOURCE – MRED LLC





Chicago Real Estate Market Summary – November 2011

8 12 2011

November 2011 showed  continued increases in Unit Sales and Units Under Contract and decreases in Inventory and Months Of Supply for the fourth consecutive month in Lakeview, Lincoln Park, Near North and the Loop  when compared to November 2010.

 Inventory levels continue to decline in comparison to a year ago and averaged 8.7 months of supply this year for the combined areas, compared to 18.1 months of supply in November 2010. These levels are still high enough to have a negative effect on median pricing which dropped 10.1%

When looking at the combined areas by price point, homes priced under $500,000 and those priced over $1,000,000 showed unit sales increases, while homes priced between $500,000 and $1,000,000 showed a 17.1 % decrease in comparison to November 2010.

       
  Nov-11 Nov-10 % +/-
       
Unit Sales – Total 311 287   8.4
Lakeview   81   73  11.0
Lincoln Park   57   55    3.6
Near North 125 119    5.0
Loop   48   40   20.0
       
Unit Sales By Price Point       
0 – $500,000 216 194  11.3
$500,000 – $ 1,000,000   58   70 -17.1
$ 1,000,000 – Up   41   31  32.2
       
Units Under Contract – Total 377 278  35.6
Lakeview 100   73  37.0
Lincoln Park   72   61  18.0
Near North 156 113  38.1
Loop   49   31  58.1
       
Unit Inventory – Total 4,269 6,103 -30.1
Lakeview 1146 1525 -24.9
Lincoln Park  848 1045 -18.9
Near North 1763 2654 -33.6
Loop  512  879 -41.8
       
Inventory (Months Of Supply)  8.7 18.1 -51.8
Lakeview  8.5 16.8 -49.4
Lincoln Park  8.7 13.3 -35.2
Near North  9.0 19.7 -54.5
Loop  8.4 24.5 -65.8
       
Median Pricing – Total 335,000 372,000 -10.1
Lakeview 385,000 415,000   -7.1
Lincoln Park 395,000 457,000 -13.7
Near North 305,000 330,000   -7.6
Loop 238,500 324,500 -26.5
        

Source - MREDLLC





Chicago Real Estate Market Summary – October 2011

8 11 2011

Increases in Unit Sales and Units Under Contract and decreases in Inventory and Months Of Supply continued for the third consecutive month in Lakeview, Lincoln Park, Near North and the Loop  when comparing October 2011 to 2010.

Inventory levels continue to decline dramatically in comparison to a year ago and averaged 9.1 months of supply for the combined areas. These levels are still high enough to have a negative effect on median pricing which dropped 17.8%

Lincoln Park was an exception to otherwise consistent results with the only decrease in unit sales by 5.8%, yet posting a 20.3% increase in median pricing.

It should be noted that while homes priced under $500,000 and those priced between $500,000 and $1,000,000 showed increases, homes priced over $1,000,000 showed a decrease.

  Oct-11 Oct-10 % +/-
       
Unit Sales – Total 305 291   4.8
Lakeview   79   69  14.5
Lincoln Park   48   57 -15.8
Near North 142 130    9.2
Loop   36   35    2.9
       
Unit Sales By Price Point       
0 – $500,000 224 207   8.3
$500,000 – $ 1,000,000  60  49  22.4
$ 1,000,000 – Up  21  35 -40.0
       
Units Under Contract – Total 395 334  18.3
Lakeview 109  88  23.9
Lincoln Park  73  70   4.3
Near North 160 140  14.3
Loop  53  36  47.2
       
Unit Inventory – Total 4746 6573 -27.8
Lakeview 1309 1641 -20.2
Lincoln Park  949 1162 -18.3
Near North 1924 2872 -33.0
Loop  564 898 -37.2
       
Inventory (Months Of Supply) 9.1 16.2 -43.7
Lakeview 9.0 15.2 -40.7
Lincoln Park 9.7 13.1 -26.0
Near North 9.3 16.9 -45.4
Loop 8.2 21.7 -62.5
       
Median Pricing – Total 320,500 390,000 -17.8
Lakeview  315,000  395,000 - 20.3
Lincoln Park  516,250  463,000   11.5
Near North  260,050  390,000 -33.3
Loop  287,500  252,500   13.3

Source – MREDLLC





Chicago Real Estate Market Summary – September 2011

11 10 2011

Increases in Unit Sales and Units Under Contract and decreases in Inventory and Months Of Supply continued for the second consecutive month in Lakeview, Lincoln Park, Near North and the Loop  when comparing September 2011 to 2010.

Even with inventory decreases, levels are still high enough to continue to drive prices down, if only by 1.9% for the combined areas in September.

Decreases in Unit Sales in Near North and increases in Median Price in Lakeview were exceptions to otherwise consistent results.

It should be noted that while homes priced under $500,000 and those priced over $1,000,000 showed increases, homes priced between $500,000 and $1,000,000 showed a decrease.

  Sep-11 Sep-10 % +/-
       
Unit Sales – Total 387 339 14.2
Lakeview 105  80 31.2
Lincoln Park  85  56 51.8
Near North 142 157 -9.6
Loop  55  48 19.6
       
Unit Sales By Price Point       
0 – $500,000 273 231 18.2
$500,000 – $ 1,000,000  77  83 -7.2
$ 1,000,000 – Up  39  27 44.4
       
Units Under Contract – Total 396 281 40.9
Lakeview 111   74 50.0
Lincoln Park  63   50 26.0
Near North 165 119 38.7
Loop  57   38 50.0
       
Unit Inventory – Total 4978 6878 -27.6
Lakeview 1399 1763 -20.6
Lincoln Park  991 1227 -19.2
Near North 1985 2944 -32.2
Loop   593  944 -37.2
       
Inventory (Months Of Supply)  9.6 20.4 -53.0
Lakeview  9.4 19.1 -50.5
Lincoln Park 12.1 19.7 -38.6
Near North  9.4 21.1 -55.4
Loop  7.6 21.8 -64.7
       
Median Pricing – Total 365,000 370,000 -1.4
Lakeview 410,000 320,000  28.1
Lincoln Park 440,00 515,000 -14.7
Near North 318,750 349,000  -8.7
Loop 315,000 394,450 -29.1
       

Source – MREDLLC





A Comparison Of Bank Owned Properties To Non Bank Owned Properties – Lakeview, Lincoln Park And Near North – September 2011

27 09 2011

A friend of mine recently asked me about Bank Owned Properties, as they are so prominent in the news.  He was curious as to how many there are in this area (Lakeview, Lincoln Park and Near North) and how they compare to Non Bank Owned Properties.

I have attached 3 reports below that show the comparison of Bank Owned Properties to Non Bank Owned Properties by month for the past 2 years, for Unit Sales, Unit Inventory and Median Pricing.

There appears to be a significant amount of “shadow inventory” (inventory that is not yet on the market); however, Bank Owned Properties average about 10% of the total homes for sale.  In August 2011, they represented 8.7% of the total, with a high in December 2010 of 11.6% and a low of 6.8% in August 2009.

Units Sold showed much more fluctuation, with August 2011 Bank Owned Properties accounting for 10.4% of total sales. The high was 28.9% in February of 2011 and the low was 5.6% in September of 2009.

Median prices have remained fairly consistent for properties sold during the past 2 years.  Median prices for Bank Owned Properties were about 50% lower than Non Bank Owned Properties.

Please click on the 3 reports below (enlarge to 100%) for more detailed, printable information. Each report is 2 pages with both graphs and spread sheets.

Inventory Units – Bank vs Non Bank

Sold Units – Bank vs Non Bank

Median Price Sold – Bank vs Non Bank

Source – MREDLLC





Chicago Real Estate Market Summary – August 2011

12 09 2011

With the effects of the federal real estate tax credits of 2010 winding down, August 2011 showed sales increases for Lakeview, Lincoln Park, Near North and the Loop for the first time in over a year.

Despite an onslaught of negative economic news, Unit Sales were up 18.2% and Units Under Contract were up 54.7% in comparison to August 2010.

Increases were also posted for all three price points (see below).

While Unit Inventory and Months Of Supply decreased dramatically compared to 2010, inventory levels continue to have a negative effect on prices. Median Prices for August 2011 dropped 7.5% against August 2010.

  Aug-11 Aug-10 % +/-
       
Unit Sales – Total 494 418 18.2
Lakeview 152 119 27.2
Lincoln Park   97   78 24.4
Near North 193 168 14.9
Loop   52   53   1.9
       
Unit Sales By Price Point       
0 – $500,000 344 280 22.9
$500,000 – $ 1,000,000 101   98   3.1
$ 1,000,000 – Up   50   45 11.1
       
Units Under Contract – Total 492 318 54.7
Lakeview 117   81 44.2
Lincoln Park   89   54 64.8
Near North 203 134 51.5
Loop   83   49 69.4
       
Unit Inventory – Total 5203 7065 -26.4
Lakeview 1428 1838 -22.3
Lincoln Park 1012 1218 -16.9
Near North 2092 3009 -30.5
Loop  671 1000 -32.9
       
Inventory (Months Of Supply) 8.0 18.2 -55.9
Lakeview 9.3 18.0 -48.2
Lincoln Park 8.5 18.2 -53.3
Near North 8.0 18.9 -57.4
Loop 5.6 16.6 -66.3
       
Median Pricing – Total 375,000 386,500 -7.5
Lakeview 373,500 369,000   1.2
Lincoln Park 425,000 436,000  -2.5
Near North 338,000 350,750  -3.6
Loop 295,000 419,900 -29.7
       

Source – MRED LLC





Real Estate Taxes And The New Health Care Bill

23 08 2011

There has been a lot of confusion concerning additional real estate taxes associated with the new health care bill. The following excerpts from an article by Brooks Jackson, clarifies the new tax and who will be affected. 

At the last minute, lawmakers decided on a new 3.8 percent tax on the net investment income of high-income persons. But the claim that this would amount to a $15,200 tax on the sale of a typical $400,000 home is utterly false.

The truth is that only a tiny percentage of home sellers will pay the tax. First of all, only those with incomes over $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly) will be subject to it. And even for those who have such high incomes, the tax still won’t apply to the first $250,000 on profits from the sale of a personal residence — or to the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple selling their home.

We can understand how this misconception got started. The law itself is couched in highly technical language that only a qualified tax expert can fully grasp. (This provision begins on page 33 of the reconciliation billl that was passed and signed into law.) And it does say the tax falls on “net gain … attributable to the disposition of property.” That would include the sale of a home. But the bill also says the tax falls only on that portion of any gain that is “taken into account in computing taxable income” under the existing tax code. And the fact is, the first $250,000 in profit on the sale of a primary residence (or $500,000 in the case of a married couple) is excluded from taxable income already. (That exclusion doesn’t apply to vacation homes or rental properties.)

The Joint Committee on Taxation, the group of nonpartisan tax experts that Congress relies on to analyze tax proposals, underscores this in a footnote on page 139 of its report on the bill. The note states: “Gross income does not include … excluded gain from the sale of a principal residence.”

And just to be sure, we checked with William Ahern, director of policy and communications for the nonprofit, pro-business Tax Foundation. “Some home sales would see a tax increase under this bill,” Ahern told us, “but it would have to be a second home or a principal residence generating [a gain of] more than $250,000 ($500,000 for a couple).”

So there you have it. The sort of people who would have to pay the tax might include, for example:

  • A single executive making $210,000 a year who sells his $300,000 ski condo for a $50,000 profit. His tax on the sale of that vacation home would amount to $1,900, in addition to the capital gains tax he would have paid anyway.
  • An “empty nester” couple with combined income of over $250,000 a year who sell their $1 million primary residence to move to smaller quarters. If they cleared $600,000 on the sale, they would be taxed on $100,000 of the profit (the amount over the half-million-dollar exclusion). Their health care tax on the sale would amount to $3,800 over and above the usual capital gains levy.

However, a typical home sale would not incur any tax. In March, for example, half of all existing homes sold for $170,700 or less, according to the National Association of Realtors. Obviously, none of those sales could possibly generate a $250,000 profit, and so none would be subject to the tax.

Thus, for the vast majority, the 3.8 percent tax won’t apply. The Tax Foundation, in a report released April 15, said the new tax on investment income (including real estate) “will hit approximately the top-earning two percent of families” when it takes effect in 2013.

The Internal Revenue Service says that to qualify for the $250,000/$500,000 exclusion, a seller must have owned the home and lived there as the seller’s “main home” for at least two years out of the five years prior to the sale.

Source – Brooks Jackson – Fast Check.Org








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.