Buy a Vintage 3-Bedroom Bungalow With 2 Kitchens: 3037 W. Belden in Logan Square

This 3-bedroom brick bungalow at 3037 W. Belden in Logan Square has been on the market since January 2010.

3037-w-belden-approved.jpg

In that time it has been reduced $175,000 and is now a short sale.

Built in 1890, it has a rare double lot measuring 50×140.

It also has not just 1 but 2 kitchens, with the second one in the recently finished basement.

There is one big bedroom in the attic with 2 smaller bedrooms on the main level.

The listing also says the roof, electrical, heating and cooling have all been replaced.

It has central air and a 2 car garage.

Is this house a good starter home candidate for this neighborhood?

3037-w-belden-living-room-approved.jpg

3037-w-belden-kitchen-_1-approved.jpg

3037-w-belden-bedroom-approved.jpg

3037-w-belden-bathroom-approved.jpg

3037-w-belden-kitchen-_2-approved.jpg

Leigh Marcus at @Properties has the listing. See more pictures here.

3037 W. Belden: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1381 square feet, 2 car garage

  • Sold in March 1992 for $6,000
  • Sold in April 2005 for $110,000
  • Sold in April 2006 for $350,000
  • Originally listed in January 2010 for $550,000
  • Reduced numerous times
  • Currently listed as a “short sale” for $375,000
  • Taxes of $4435
  • Central Air
  • Double lot of 50×140
  • Bedroom #1: 19×14 (attic)
  • Bedroom #2: 12×8 (main level)
  • Bedroom #3: 7×7 (main level)
  • Kitchen: 14×12 (main level)
  • Kitchen #2: 10×8 (lower level)

27 Responses to “Buy a Vintage 3-Bedroom Bungalow With 2 Kitchens: 3037 W. Belden in Logan Square”

  1. nice rehab, but kind of tiny. I don’t count a 7 x 7 room as a bedroom.

    0
    0
  2. They should have put a decent sized 3rd BR in the basement instead of a second kitchen.

    0
    0
  3. This realtor should be flogged – the best thing going for this place is not only a double lot but an extra-deep double lot, and not one single picture.

    Shoot, they even mention this:

    “Huge yard including a patio area!”

    0
    0
  4. 7×7 bedroom? I don’t think so!

    This is a cute place, apart from the kitchen needing to be finished and the bathroom situation (bedrooms on 3 levels, with only one bath on two of the those levels).

    0
    0
  5. “bedrooms on 3 levels, with only one bath on two of the those levels”

    Currently there are bedrooms on two levels. Putting one in the basement would make it three levels, but that is preferable to trying to sell a 7 x 7 room as a “bedroom.” There should be a bath in the basement too, instead of the silly kitchen.

    0
    0
  6. I’m lost as to where and how many bedrooms this house has. The listing says 4 total, three above grade and one below. Sabrina says 3, one upstairs and two down.

    The pictures of the two bedrooms make them both look upstairs (from the slanted walls) and the basement entertainment area seems to take up the full basement.

    So, are there 2 bedrooms up and 2 on the first floor, or what?

    0
    0
  7. Are those linoleum floors in the 2nd floor bedrooms?

    0
    0
  8. “Are those linoleum floors in the 2nd floor bedrooms?”

    Yep.

    You could pull it up and use it to finish off the kitchen.

    0
    0
  9. i like the basement floor and extra kitchen. bc it is weird

    0
    0
  10. The listing says there are two 2nd floor bedrooms, the 7×7 on the main floor and one in the basement.

    0
    0
  11. Sorry one in the attic, 2 on the main floor and then the basement. But the photos make it look like there are two attic rooms.

    0
    0
  12. The 1992 selling price gives you a pretty good idea what kind of neighborhood this was just 20 years ago, and for about 50 years previous to that.

    Strange, W Rogers Park was pristine back then, and the shabby slum apartment buildings on West Sheridan (zip 60613) were just beginning to be vacated and rehabilitated.

    0
    0
  13. “Sold in March 1992 for $6,000”

    If that’s accurate, this place must have been a dump. My neighbor in Logan bought her place, which has the same lot size, for $50k in the 1980s, which leads me to believe this place was a really piece of work.

    I’m not fond of these blocks of Belden, Lyndale, or Medill between California and Kedzie…among the least desirable blocks in desirable Logan (which I define as Armitage to Diversey, east of Central Park north of Fullerton and east of Kimball south of Fullerton).

    0
    0
  14. Logan Square was just getting “off the ground” (or out of the sewer, if you prefer) in the 80s.

    Logan and Kedzie Blvds were and are the beautiful streets there. I love those streets- they’re very beautiful and very good, but things go downhill two or three blocks away from them, I notice.

    It was a very dangerous area in the 80s, but your neighbor would have had to pay more like $250K at least for a “comparable” in a better area. Your neighbor was one of the pioneers of the area, obviously.

    0
    0
  15. ““Sold in March 1992 for $6,000?

    If that’s accurate”

    It’s not.

    The March ’92 doc is a Trust Deed (aka, a mortgage), not a real deed.

    The grantor of the ’92 trust deed is also the grantor of the 2005 (recorded in 2006) deed for $110k, and the grantee in that deed had filed a lis pendens against the grantor in 2003.

    Basically, the described transactions before the $350k sale are not actual market sales.

    0
    0
  16. unless you really want to live in Logan Square and need an in-law arrangement, or a man cave with a kitchen, why would you deal with the short sale when you can have this is perhaps a better if less trendy neighbhorood?

    http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/4506-N-Mcvicker-Ave-60630/home/13475824

    0
    0
  17. “Basically, the described transactions before the $350k sale are not actual market sales.”

    Yep. I’ll also add that the $350,000 sale was not listed or sold on the mls – no presence at all.

    0
    0
  18. Icarus – That location is far from transit, trendy, and walkable. These two locations have little in uncommon, aside from being on the NW side.

    0
    0
  19. *little in common*

    0
    0
  20. Chris, definitely not trendy but not terrible far from transit…if you need the expressways, or O’hare. Quite tree lined, cleaner streets.

    0
    0
  21. “Icarus – That location is far from transit, trendy, and walkable. These two locations have little in uncommon, aside from being on the NW side.”

    Icarus only likes comps that are at least a couple miles from the subject property.

    Also, it’s odd that redfin carries over its agents’ comments from the prior listing (at least without explicitly noting that the house has been sold and whatever in the interim).

    0
    0
  22. Yeah mayfair kinda sucks.

    0
    0
  23. Hi HD –

    I think of Mayfair as more East of the Kennedy between Montrose and Foster. I actually like Mayfair a lot. Don’t rule it out in your search – although I don’t know about the school situation. Groove would know. It fits my criteria of a non-GZ neighborhood which is not fancy or trendy, but still beautiful and interesting. I looked at a few condos there last year but all were in buildings where the entire HOA was distressed. There were more foreclosures in my price range then. I’m not seeing as much pop up these days. Public transportation is not ideal, but you’ve got the Blue Line at Montrose and the Montrose, Lawrence and Foster buses. I think Albany Park and Mayfair are really underrated. I’m actually going to try out a new hair stylist in the neighborhood next week.

    0
    0
  24. Icarus, I’d much rather have a brick bungalow than a vinyl sided anything!

    0
    0
  25. Logan square was dangerous in the 80s compared to the burbs, but it wasn’t Englewood, let’s stay serious. I lived in Logan Sq for a few years and my best friend lived there (his parents are still there), if you weren’t in a gang you weren’t likely to have problems- same as today.

    0
    0
  26. Under K

    0
    0
  27. Nice Lot. I’m curious what it sells for

    0
    0

Leave a Reply