Get a 3-Bedroom Vintage Bungalow For Under $350,000 in West Ridge: 2248 W. Lunt
This 3-bedroom bungalow at 2248 W. Lunt in West Ridge has been on the market since April 2011.
It has been reduced $50,000 to $349,000 in that time.
Built in 1906 on an extra wide 60×90 lot, it has many of its vintage features including oak box-beam ceilings in the dining room.
The lighting in the dining room also has hand blown Lundberg shades.
The house has some stained glass windows and one of the baths has a claw foot tub.
The kitchen has custom built cabinets and some stainless steel appliances.
2 of the 3 bedrooms are on the main floor with the third on the second level along with a 26×26 recreation room.
While the house has space pak cooling it is missing a garage. There is street parking only.
This is only the 3rd time the house has been on the market in the last 25 years.
Is this bungalow now priced to sell?
Ian Schwartz at Coldwell Banker has the listing. See more pictures here.
2248 W. Lunt: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 2150 square feet
- Sold in May 1986 (no price listed)
- Sold in August 1998 for $189,000
- Originally listed in April 2011 for $399,000
- Reduced
- Currently listed at $349,000
- Taxes of $3724
- Space pak cooling
- No garage or deeded parking
- Bedroom #1: 14×10 (main level)
- Bedroom #2: 11×8 (main level)
- Bedroom #3: 19×13 (second level)
- Recreation room: 26×26 (second level)
Cute little house, but still a little high priced. Other side of Western has lower-priced bigger brick bungalows w/garages and standard lot sizes on very standardized blocks. This side of Western has a nicer ambience, many street trees, and more varied residential architecture, but close to rundown Clark Avenue high-density, ethnically-diverse, East Rogers Park corridor. I’d like to see a high ornamental fence and shrubbery ringing the property, several fruit trees, a parking pad within fence-line, and a less than $300,000 price, then this could be a “hunkerdown and ride-out bad economy” home.
Love the Aga stove!
Nice house!
Nice house and also love the Aga. Same concerns as Architect and also about the foundation, since house was built in 1906.
Cute, but overpriced and needs a lot of work.
We’re back to 1997 income levels, so I don’t see paying more than a Y2K price for a small non-masonry house in a non-prime neighborhood. West Ridge- W. Rogers Park property values have gone through the floor and there is massive inventory around there, and you can do better than this for the price.
I believe this area will revive and I think it’s a great bet for someone who wants a nice place in the city close to the lake. But you’re taking much more risk with your money, so you should make sure that risk is priced into the property you’re buying.
Place looks good and it has space pac cooling, which is a big plus given what it costs to install that.
“We’re back to 1997 income levels”
You do realize that that is measured in constant dollars, not nominal dollars, right?
And that that 1998 $189k sale price is $262k in 2011 dollars, right?
And that this place has *clearly* been *substantially* (but perhaps only cosmetically) improved over the past 13 years, right?
Not saying that $350k is the right price, but $200k or $225k (the likely Y2K nominal price) ain’t the right price, either.
“We’re back to 1997 income levels”
Sigh. That’s the problem with reading all these articles if you don’t understand what they are saying.
@Laura “needs a lot of work”
What work does it need? I hate overdone rehabs. I happen to think this property looks really nice. I can’t imagine where you would put any money in it besides landscaping.
What’s the issue? Laura didn’t say it’s worth $189k. In fact, she probably did mean it’s worth around 1997-2000 price adjusted (say, $280k or so). Which seems about right to me, assuming you price risk of falling relative RP values in the way Laura does.
Love this place, but don’t like its placement on the lot — would rather have a back yard. Would take a good look at it for sub-300 if you are ok with Armstrong (I assume many are).
I think its worth sub 200. I agree with laura.
The problem is that some posters don’t realize how poor most people really are.
I’ll say it sells 300k
HD is getting stupider by the day.
V: the feeling is mutual.
“The problem is that some posters don’t realize how poor most people really are.”
this is takes stupidest comment of the day!
No no vlajos, your post about this being the best time to buy wins the prize for stupidest post.
http://cribchatter.com/?p=11497#comment-188309
“Vlajos on September 22nd, 2011 at 1:30 pm
“The problem is that some posters don’t realize how poor most people really are.”
this is takes stupidest comment of the day!”
Hey Vlajos. I’m curious. Where does your alias “Vlajos”come from?
Flawed logic: I’m broke and therefore everyone else must be.
BS. lots of people have lots of cash, and access to credit.
TB: “BS. lots of people have lots of cash, and access to credit.”
Not going to argue that point, considering there is no point of reference for it. Yes, some people have cash. Yes, some people have access to loans. But isn’t the relevant question: do enough people have cash and access to credit to support the RE boom of the last decade? Or maybe: relevant to 1996 (or pick your reference year), do fewer or more people have enough cash and credit to purchase a home?
My point is that your logic is just as flawed as assuming no-one has access to cash and credit.
“The problem is that some posters don’t realize how poor most people really are.
This is 100%true, but 100% irrelevant to the discussion of real estate/investments. Remember that throughout history, only a small percentage of people are the ones who buy homes and invest in the stock market. THOSE people, HD, ARE sittting on a lot of money/cash right now – they don’t know where to invest.
HD, I think you underestimate how many households make a good living – meaning incomes $150-$300k in the Chicago area. Remember, incomes in that bracket are typically concentrated around large cities. So while a small percentage of all income earners in aggregate, the reality is that they all live in concentrated areas which is why housing prices near cities/certain hoods always tend to be relatively high.
The internet’s greatest contribution to society is the comment that insults someone else’s intelligence while making a grammatical error. It never gets old to me.
Vlajos on September 22nd, 2011 at 1:30 pm
this is takes stupidest comment of the day!
I ain’t broke.
“Flawed logic: I’m broke and therefore everyone else must be. “
We aren’t talking about Chicago here, we’re talking about a little bungalow in Roger’s Park.
No one making $150,000 a year or more will be interested in this bungalow.
“HD, I think you underestimate how many households make a good living – meaning incomes $150-$300k in the Chicago area.”
“No one making $150,000 a year or more will be interested in this bungalow.”
Are you saying that only those making $150k should be looking at places such as the subject property? This thing’s closing in the low-$300’s, maybe $300k. It’s a house – which means that most folks who would be interested in it are planning to live there long term. Perhaps your hypothetical buyers – who currently earn $150k – do not expect their incomes to increase over the course of their careers, in which case, sure: they might want to snap this place up and raise a family in it. But my sense is that many buyers in the $150k income/low $300k’s price range are looking to buy a condo at that price point.
This is all follows the same line of questioning that I’ve been sending your way recently, HD. Your household is presumably in the $150k/year range (give or take), and you’re looking to buy a place for not much more than the subject property – in which you plan to live for a long time. I would venture that you’re in a very tiny minority in that regard.
This is a very cute home but I think it has a ways to still come down. At this price, i’d rather take the same house in Oak Park for less. If it goes under $300k, it looks better to me.
It’s a nice house but I don’t want to live in the neighborhood. What’s wrong with that? I can afford to be picky. Further, the floor plan is not ideal. The bedrooms are split between two levels.
I’d basically agree with your assessment. However, I don’t think I’m in the minority, I’m part of a cultural shift back to the days of our parents and grandparents, when you bought a newer house, and lived in it for a long time, and the payment was totally affordable, you paid it off usually in less than 30 years, and maybe once or twice you would update the kitchen or the bathroom during your tenancy of the house. 1/3rd of all homes don’t have a mortgage, I want to join that 1/3rd. And with all the ‘stuck’ homeowners and the tighter credit standards, I imagine with time the 1/3rd will increase.
But back to the house, this house sold for $316, which means that I don’t think the subject house will sell in the $300’s.
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2051-W-Farwell-Ave-60645/home/13572352
“This is all follows the same line of questioning that I’ve been sending your way recently, HD. Your household is presumably in the $150k/year range (give or take), and you’re looking to buy a place for not much more than the subject property – in which you plan to live for a long time. I would venture that you’re in a very tiny minority in that regard.”
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2102-W-Estes-Ave-60645/home/13571687
$250
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2201-W-Estes-Ave-60645/home/13572010
$265
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2088-W-Lunt-Ave-60645/home/13571618
$375 listing under K
49×175 lot
nicer house
NO way the listed house is $300k
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2055-W-Lunt-Ave-60645/unit-304/home/13570674
$41 for a 1/1 in the area, good condition too.
Condos have been SLAMMED in the fringe areas.
2/1.5
$92k
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/6960-N-Bell-Ave-60645/unit-310/home/13571990
Damn this is cheaper than rent.
“NO way the listed house is $300k”
It’s a hell of a lot closer to 300k than 200k.
2102 Estes…no wonder it went for $250k, I couldn’t get past that horrid exterior!
2088 Lunt….that is a fabulous bath! I don’t think I have ever seen a wood paneled bath before.
The condos are horrid! No wonder they are so cheap. Would you really call 2055 Lunt as being slammed when it sold over list and the last sale ages ago was only slightly higher? The seller didn’t lose money I’m sure.
Those condos were selling for insane prices in 2006; and now they’re selling for a fraction of the price. $41,000 for a one bedroom is pretty cheap if you ask me.
This little house is quaint, and nice, but it has problems, in my opinion, but what the hell do I know?
Hey Homedelete: check out this “charming chalet” at 4728 N. Knox in Irving Park.
It has the original 1960s kitchen!
I was going to post on it but it’s now pending. It has good bones though.
http://tours.vht.com/realestateforsale/HomesForSale/50494935/Homes-For-Sale-4728-N-Knox-Chicago-Illinois_60630.aspx
I know some people who have a 2/2 condo on lundt, closer to the lake and their place has probably lost 50% of its value in less than 4 years. I feel really bad for them as they will likely never be able to sell it or move barring some inheritance or something of course
Its a shame because its not a bad hood, if they ever re-did or at least cleaned up the morse el stop a little bit it would actually be a nice neighborhood close to the lake and the best (as in, largest and least crowded on a nice day) beach in the city (loyola) only problem is that its such a long train ride to downtown, it takes me like an hour to get up there to visit via the red line, and that blows!
“only problem is that its such a long train ride to downtown, it takes me like an hour to get up there to visit via the red line, and that blows!”
take a cab or drive.
Sabrina: I think Groove or Icracus linked to that house a while back. It’s pretty interesting and pretty cheap! Mayfair is a pretty working class area but it’s changed a bit with the housing bubble and more younger and professional couples have moved in, but the businesses in the area still cater to the older, working class environment.
Reduced to $324,000
This one’s now down to $284,000. Eventually it’s gotta find a buyer, right?
What’s going on in West Ridge? This short sale of a nice, spacious, renovated condo in the nieghborhood went for almost 55% off its 07 price:
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2061-W-Farwell-Ave-60645/unit-3/home/22994661
Maybe the seller’s detailed knowledge of condo associations helped get the sale approved??
SOLD June 14, 2012 ….$255k