Get a 3-Bedroom Lincoln Park Penthouse For Under $350K: 2520 N. Lincoln
This 3-bedroom duplex up penthouse at 2520 N. Lincoln in Lincoln Park just came on the market.
All 3 bedrooms are on the second floor. The unit also has skylights and 2 balconies.
This building was built in 1970 and appears to have been converted in the 2005-2007 period. The finishes reflect that era including cherry cabinets, granite counter tops and stainless steel appliances in the kitchen.
The unit has the features buyers look for including central air, washer/dryer in the unit and parking is included.
It is listed $11,000 under the 2005 purchase price at $349,000.
Is this a deal for a 3-bedroom with those amenities and located in the heart of Lincoln Park?
Correna Malyon at Jameson Sotheby’s has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #404: 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, no square footage listed, duplex up
- Sold in April 2005 for $360,000 (included the parking)
- Currently listed for $349,000 (includes the parking)
- Assessments of $195 a month
- Taxes of $6007
- Central Air
- Washer/Dryer in the unit
- Bedroom #1: 11×11 (second floor)
- Bedroom #2: 11×11 (second floor)
- Bedroom #3: 10×9 (second floor)
The interior looks surprisingly good (relatively only of course) for the exterior which is nauseating to say the list.
Well the rooms are VERY small. Maybe you can knock out the wall on one of the rooms to make a bigger master bedroom? Knowing the square footage would also be helpful. Not the nicest curb appeal, but I do like the area a lot and I think the price is reasonable. Assessments very reasonable too, but make me curious about the building’s financials and their reserves. Would be a great first purchase for the young banker who wants to spit game at the DePaul students at the local bars and bring them back to his “bachelor pad penthouse”
Unattractive. Inexpensively constructed w/rental quality building materials and finishes, developer was channeling 1960s era “4+1” rental buildings.
You can play tennis out by the L tracks!
From the El (which runs behind this building) you can see that it is as well kept at The Delta House in Animal House.
I especially love the tennis courts. One of the two nets is town down, and one court has a movable basketball hoop in the middle of it. There are empty kegs, plastic lawn chairs, and garbage strewn about.
You would have to pay me to live there (as a renter).
3 bedroom places in this building have been priced in the mid $300’s since 2008.
they’ve got some work cut out for them even getting someone in the door. echoing the zero curb appeal comment. i can’t imagine the potential buyer demographic for this, at this price.
There is street fest every year right in front of this place. Can’t remember what place.
I always thought it was a cool place.
Is the Space-Time Tanks place from the 1970’s still in this building? If so, that is a game-changer. Alter states, here I come!
Here’s the only other 3BR/2.5BA duplex that has been listed in the mls since 2007:
#301 listed 5/21/09 $365,000 with pkg
price change 5/21/09 $345,000 + $20,000 pkg
cancelled 7/24/09
#301 listed 10/15/09 $349,000 + $25,000 pkg
price change 1/18/10 $339,000 + $25,000 pkg
cancelled 1/27/10
#301 rented 2/26/10 for $2,000
#402 a 2/2.5 duplex closed 7/14/08 $410,000 with pkg
#401 a 2/2 duplex closed 5/22/07 $376,000 with exterior pkg
#401 rented 3/30/11 for $2,100
#403 a 2/2 duplex closed 6/29/09 $370,000 with exterior pkg
Thanks for the flashback Nicholas! It was there in the early 80’s. Or, I was. Or, was I?
“Here’s the only other 3BR/2.5BA duplex that has been listed in the mls since 2007”
The Stevo formula sez it’s “worth” about $350k-$380.
The modified Stevo formula (requiring same cap for dp as mtg) sez it’s worth about $280k-$305k.
BUT, this is a never buy, following Stevo’s rules for undesirable properties. Violates almost every rule.
Dear sellers and agents, there is a huge group of qualified buyers, like myself, easily able to put 30% down, or more, who are currently renting MUCH better units that this for LESS. If you want to tempt me to leave my leased condo in a 4 year old tower with heated parking, doorman, pool, lake and skyline view, you are going to have to price your listings a lot lower than this. (Though, as was mentioned above, you would almost have to pay me to live here)
This was a rental for decades before it converted to condo. I knew the market was getting frothy when this place converted.
Wouldn’t rent it in 1987 and wouldn’t buy it even for less. Too many other beautiful places for less money in GZ neighborhoods.
Oh, yeah, it is almost under the Red-Brown Line el tracks.
This place* was on the HGTV show “House Hunters” (the show where people look at three properties and you try to guess which one they will buy). I thought there was NO WAY the couple in question would choose this building (it’s hideous). But they did.
*Not this unit, a 2-bed.
I did a search for flotation tanks not too long ago (hearing a friend mention them at a bar got me curious) and the google search came up with a place on Lincoln around here. So this could be it.
Hey, Morgan, are you really looking to put down “30%” down (on a non-super jumbo), or is that just nonsense? I have a theory.
this place reminds me of toronto projects.
Yep, this is the space time tanks building. I’ve been there. And the building itself is a pit.
“I have a theory.”
What is it?
That those who actually have 20% or 30% down AREN’T buying because they are more financially savvy and those with nearly no downpayment (aka FHA level 3.5% downpayments) ARE?
Sabrina, why would anyone put “30” percent down (again, unless required as part of some exotic super jumbo, etc.)? Why would one put more than 20 down, thus saving/investing the other 10 percent? It all just sounds a little fishy, that’s all (perhaps it’s part of an emerging new CC persona, sort of a poor man’s Clio).
“Sabrina, why would anyone put “30? percent down”
Have you not noticed the 30 times I have said the same thing? Once even proved it. Yet, no one agrees. Paying principal is the bees knees on CC. Ask HD, Russ, JMM.
Ze. Please. You know i agree on the concept.
But the psychology (and, really, the personal finance) for someone whose liquidity is limited to an emergency fund plus ~10% of the cost of the house, at least in the first ten years of a 30 year mortgage just doesnt work. Few people have the liquidity to have the same set of concerns/options as you.
yes anon.. You were the one person to follow rhe argument. What i am missing now, is what you are curently saying. The argument for maintaining liquidity seems more important the less you are left with.
tfo.. Truth is, just kinda fun tellin annoy that i have said that 30 times, since he doesn’t respond to Ze. Lol!!
Everyone comes from a different set of circumstances, in my case, as a former Californian, I was able to realize great profits from the sale of both of my properties when I moved to Chicago during the bubble years. Also, when I was 19 years old, I received a generous inheritance that allowed me to jump into the real estate world when I was at University. In my own circle of “renters” in my current residential tower, I would imagine about 35% could afford to buy this unit CASH, so my point was not that I wanted, or would put 30% down, but that the whole stigma of being a poor “renter” is hogwash. Renters are neither “poor” nor stupid with their money. I am renting a 2bd condo that covers slightly more than the current “owner’s” taxes, HOA and other costs.
What I was asking of agents in particular is to PLEASE check out the newer residential units for lease in the city and then imagine why anyone would want to own this when they could lease a better unit for less.
“Sabrina, why would anyone put “30? percent down (again, unless required as part of some exotic super jumbo, etc.)? Why would one put more than 20 down, thus saving/investing the other 10 percent? It all just sounds a little fishy, that’s all (perhaps it’s part of an emerging new CC persona, sort of a poor man’s Clio).”
We put 30% down when we bought our in-town. It was just one way of sweetening our offer a bit in a multi-offer situation.
30% is fairly common these days, but in the grand scheme of things, is pretty rare, which is pretty much why the real estate market is so slow these days.
For condos financed with less than 70% LTV Fannie adds a surcharge extra point on 30yrs only significantly bumping APR on those so I can see 25% down with this scenario making the most sense.
Err 75%+ LTV that is. Need more coffee.
Oddly the surcharge does not seem to apply to 15yr mortgages.
Ze- gotta live someplace, and if you have kids stability can be very important. So, buy a house that’s about rental parity, but it costs you (say) 50% of your liquidity to get a decent rate. That’s how the majority of the country buying first or first move up homes lives.
Because you have the extra cash and can’t seem to find an asset class that can outperform the interest expense without taking uneccesary risk?
“Why would one put more than 20 down, thus saving/investing the other 10 percent?”
Also, I can’t find cribchatter as easily now that there is no icon on the tab bar. I am one of those people with a hundred tabs open on multiple windows and I look for the familiar icons.
juliana: “Also, I can’t find cribchatter as easily now that there is no icon on the tab bar. I am one of those people with a hundred tabs open on multiple windows and I look for the familiar icons.”
Yes, please fix this! It’s a simple fix and will help users like juliana and I immensely.
Buyers rarely put down more than they have to in order to get the terms they want even when they are flush with cash and could easily put down more. Usually, when they see the difference in terms for say 80% versus 70%, more often than not, they don’t think it is worth the additional down payment. It just depends on the scenario.
On condos, Fannie & Freddie have a 75bps charge for LTVs above 75%. It normally bumps the interest rate by .25%. You can lessen the impact by capping the mortgage at 75% and then putting the balance on a small HELOC to 80 or 85% if you can’t swing the 25% down payment.
“Ze- gotta live someplace, and if you have kids stability can be very important. So, buy a house that’s about rental parity, but it costs you (say) 50% of your liquidity to get a decent rate. That’s how the majority of the country buying first or first move up homes lives.”
I do not disagree. I believe at parity you buy, if it makes you illiquid, you don’t. Liquidity trumps everything else. People just don’t recognize there is an actual value to it. Just think..2 identical assets, one you must hold for 5 years, other can transfer freely. You never take the former. You don’t know what the difference in value is, but you damn well know one is better than the other. Personally, I believe you save up 3 years of reserves..THEN you begin to save for your house.
“Because you have the extra cash and can’t seem to find an asset class that can outperform the interest expense without taking uneccesary risk?”
You are also giving up the option that a more positive investment may come along. Bleed me 1-2k p/yr to hold 100. i’m cool with that.
“Personally, I believe you save up 3 years of reserves..THEN you begin to save for your house.”
So, the typical person either lives cheaper than Bob for a decade or never, ever buys?
Seriously, your approach is excellent advice for someone in the top (maybe) 5% of income or assets, or with a reasonable expectation of getting there.
Weird thing russ is the site I check, aimloan.com, the surcharge only seems to be on 30yr condo mortgages with LTV greater than 75. All SFH mortgages with 80% LTV & 15yr condo mortgages with 80% LTV don’t reflect the higher points & APR.
I lived in this building for 8 years from 1993-2001. It took a long time to sell this building out when the market was good in 2005-2006. Good luck to the owner and the agent. $11,000 below 2005 sales price sounds like a dream. They need to pass some rules about what can be outside on the tennis court. It looks like a fraternity house, much like when I lived there and it was a rental building to mostly 20-somethings.