1702 w chicago

Trying to Sell a 3-Bedroom Duplex Up in West Town: 1702 W. Chicago

Jan 25 • West Town • 277 Views • 26 Comments

This 3-bedroom duplex up at 1702 W. Chicago in West Town has been on and off the market since April 2011.

In that time, the price has been lowered just $10,100.

At 1650 square feet, it has skyline views and 3 outdoor spaces.

The kitchen has granite counter tops, stainless steel appliances and maple cabinets.

Two of the bedrooms are on the main floor with the master on the second floor.

The unit has highly coveted 2-car parking, with one indoor space and one outdoor space.

It also has central air and in-unit washer/dryer.

While this unit is listed about $40,000 under the 2006 purchase price, it is still $48,400 above the 2003 price.

Before you get all up in arms about the price, Unit B in 1700 W. Chicago in the same building, which was 1900 square feet, sold just 5 months ago in September 2011 for $377,500.

Is this unit, even though it is smaller, fairly priced given the comps in the building?

Or has the market already changed in just those 5 months?

Austin Bader at Southport Sotheby’s has the listing. See the pictures here.

Unit #B: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1650 square feet, 2 car parking

  • Sold in April 2003 for $326,500
  • Sold in January 2006 for $415,000
  • Originally listed in April 2011 for $385,000
  • Reduced
  • Currently listed for $374,900
  • Assessments of $275 a month
  • Taxes of $6058
  • Central Air
  • Washer/Dryer in the unit
  • Bedroom #1: 16×20 (second floor)
  • Bedroom #2: 12×13 (main level)
  • Bedroom #3: 13×16 (main level)

 

Related Posts

26 Responses to Trying to Sell a 3-Bedroom Duplex Up in West Town: 1702 W. Chicago

  1. anon (tfo) says:

    “Is this unit, even though it is smaller, fairly priced given the comps in the building?”

    Fair ask, if theyll accept a bid of ~10% less.

  2. jenny says:

    If it hasn’t sold in nearly a year at this price, it’s just not going to sell at this price…. also, no thanks to living over a store front…. also, insert snide comment about the name in the baby’s bedroom.

  3. Groove77 says:

    i remember when i would rent, even then i still would have a true dining room and true front room (living room for you non chicagoans)

    why in the f*&^%$ would you BUY a place missing these standards?

  4. DZ says:

    I would eat pie *every* day.

  5. jenny says:

    I don’t need a dining or living room. I rarely entertain and when I do entertain, we mostly just play video games, so a dining and living room are wasted on me. I suppose it’s different when you have a family. Growing up, we never had a TV in the living room and we would all watch TV in the much smaller den. Looking back, it makes no sense to have used the den for the TV when there was a large living room.

  6. anon (tfo) says:

    “Looking back, it makes no sense to have used the den for the TV when there was a large living room.”

    Allows one to look down on other for their middlebrow tastes.

  7. Architect says:

    Still remember when this was a marginal working-class neighborhood of rundown buildings. Gentrification has occurred, but doesn’t seem baby-friendly, nor particularly neighborly. Unit self is plain-vanilla gut-rehab of a storefront building on a busy street. (Drywall minus trim; home improvement store rehab.) Don’t know why this unit would stand-out to any buyer unless priced below-market, with exception for someone looking for a live-work professional office arrangement. Given all the other better/nicer units available within a two-mile radius at this price-point, why would this unit win the beauty contest?

  8. Architect says:

    Off-topic: I’m looking for recommendations for condo buildings that allow two dogs (20 – 50lb range) that have reasonable assessments and pricing. I’ve only found 401 E Ontario. Looking for a 1/1 to 2/2 unit, with parking available but necessarily unit-owned.

  9. Architect says:

    “not necessarily unit-owned”.

  10. anon (tfo) says:

    ” I’m looking for recommendations for condo buildings that allow two dogs (20 – 50lb range) that have reasonable assessments and pricing.”

    Dunno if you consider the assessments reasonble, but I beleive that some (but not all) of the Sandburg buildings would allow 2 dogs. Also think 630 Franklin fits the bill.

  11. anon (tfo) says:

    Also, I enjoy that streetview shows the Jameson development on the SE corner with a banner stated “from $479,000″.

    Highest sale price of those that appear to have closed? $385k Lowest? $295k.

  12. gberg says:

    Penthouse should be a term reserved a for building over 10 stories…

  13. bob says:

    I’d say this unit is not baby-friendly, but the area in general is.

  14. anonny says:

    “I rarely entertain and when I do entertain, we mostly just play video games, so a dining and living room are wasted on me.”

    Are you typing from a dorm room?

  15. CK says:

    Chicago Ave is too busy so should be a discount for that. I would have no issue with living over a storefront as long as it was not a nightclub or restaurant.

    Regarding Groove’s statement about the need for a living/dining room. I keep reading here and there how the latest generation cares little for it. See this WSJ article: http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2011/01/13/no-mcmansions-for-millennials/

  16. Groove77 says:

    “I keep reading here and there how the latest generation cares little for it.”

    yep both those stupid bastardz cant afford to buy anymore too much college loan debt and little salary.

    how about building/renovating to suit the needs of people with buying power.

  17. yoss says:

    “Architect (January 25, 2012, 9:52 am)

    Off-topic: I’m looking for recommendations for condo buildings that allow two dogs (20 – 50lb range) that have reasonable assessments and pricing. I’ve only found 401 E Ontario. Looking for a 1/1 to 2/2 unit, with parking available but necessarily unit-owned.”

    If you’re ok with River North I would check out 411 West Ontario / 550 N Kingsbury / 520 W Huron / 420 W Grand – all are about $250-300 / sqr foot and assessments for a 2BR will be $400-600 / month.

  18. juliana says:

    Thanks for the link. As typical, I enjoy the comments section more than the article.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2011/01/13/no-mcmansions-for-millennials/tab/comments/

    “See this WSJ article”

  19. Sonies says:

    yes anon 2 dogs are allowed and the assessments are quite cheap

  20. CK says:

    “how about building/renovating to suit the needs of people with buying power.”

    I feel like I have to take Gen Y’s wants and needs into account (who knows, maybe their self-absorbed boomer parents will leave em a few bucks). I have a few ideas from that article now about outdoor space and an upcoming bathroom remodel. There are tons more of em then us (Gen X), and they will probably be who I am trying to sell/rent too at some point. :-)

  21. ChiTownGal says:

    How do you determine if a nabe is “baby-friendly?” I mean, it’s not like the baby can sneak out of the apt. behind the ‘rents backs and partake of the local amenities (unlike, say, a teenager).

    I suppose you define “baby friendly” as having a plethora of parks where parents/sitters park their super-strollers by the benches all day and eat/smoke/chat while their little darlings nap/play…day-care centers on the ground floor of every other “mixed-use” building on the street…new/used “designer child clothing boutiques” amongst the coffee shops and cupcake emporiums…not sure if this part of town fills that bill, but maybe not every family wants such an atmosphere for themselves or their kids. (Apparently my parents did not!)

  22. Realtor-speak refers to any top-floor unit as a “penthouse”, which is sort of like referring to 5000 block N Marine Drive as Lincoln Park just because that is the north end of the park. “Penthouse” should be a term reserved for units that are on top of the building and have outdoor space and reasonable separation from other units. A “penthouse” can be on the 4th floor if it has these things, but I don’t care if it’s on the 104th floor, if it is just another apartment on the top floor with no outdoor space and with common walls, than it’s just a top-floor apartment.

  23. helmethofer says:

    I agree Laura. Technically it means “an apartment built on a roof of a building”.

  24. GG says:

    $335?

    I don’t get the appeal of this unit at all, and I live in (and love) West Town. This is clearly a rental in the $1800-2200 range — getting to rent parity would be awfully difficult. The immediate area can be sketchy at night, too.

  25. uffy says:

    http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1700-W-Chicago-Ave-60622/unit-3/home/12698122

    Pretty similar sale in the building at 377k last September. Seems overpriced to me but obviously not to those buyers.

  26. FredB says:

    Saw both units, the one that sold and one on the market. The one that sold was not 1900 square feet. Units very similar in size. Square footage in city residential real estate is a very general figure and is often embellished. Resales of newer construction penthouse duplexes in the neighborhood are well into the 400′s, so this asking price doesn’t seem too far off.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

« »