“Totally Rehabbed” 2-Bedroom in The Conservatory Has Been Reduced 25%: 2314 N. Lincoln Park West

This 2-bedroom in The Conservatory at 2314 N. Lincoln Park West in Lincoln Park has been on the market since March 2011.

In those 15 months it has been reduced about 25% to $699,000.

The listing describes it as “totally rehabbed”.

It has floor to ceiling windows and a balcony that overlooks Lincoln Park, the Lake and the Conservatory.

There are only 2 units per floor.

The kitchen has black granite and stainless steel appliances. The bathrooms are granite and marble.

It also has the modern amenities buyers look for with central air, washer/dryer in the unit and parking, which is included.

Is this now a deal for the neighborhood?

Eileen Brennan at Prudential Rubloff has the listing. See the pictures here.

Unit #6N: 2 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, 1600 square feet

  • Sold in January 1998 for $352,000
  • Originally listed in March 2011 for $935,000
  • Reduced numerous times
  • Currently listed for $699,000
  • Assessments of $1200 a month (includes heat, a/s, doorman, cable)
  • Taxes of $7821
  • Central Air
  • Washer/Dryer in the unit
  • Bedroom #1: 15×14
  • Bedroom #2: 11×14

 

19 Responses to ““Totally Rehabbed” 2-Bedroom in The Conservatory Has Been Reduced 25%: 2314 N. Lincoln Park West”

  1. nice place, but $1200 a month for assessments….no thanks

    0
    0
  2. We should have a CCRD-off to see who can determine the face value of the existing mortgages.

    0
    0
  3. Seems like you could pay a lot less than this for a nice 2 BR in Lincoln Park. And I’m not sure this building is really worth the extra price. It’s more than 30 years old, and the interior reflects that. Also, you’re on a relatively low floor, and I’m not sure how many amenities this building has compared with larger buildings a little further north such as 2626, 2650 and 2800. As someone else pointed out, these assessments, while not earth shattering, are a bit higher than those other buildings, as well. You do get a little more square footage with this 2 BR compared with 2 BRs in the other buildings I mentioned, so that works to its favor. And of course, it has a balcony, which those others don’t. Sounds like parking is included in the price, so that’s another plus.

    Interesting fact about 2314: I remember very well when it was built. They started in the late 1970s, but must have ran out of money, because it stayed half built (about 15 stories) and empty for at least a couple of years before it was finally completed in the early 1980s.

    0
    0
  4. the decor, though not my taste, takes this place up a notch. im sure most of it will leave with the owners. 590k.

    0
    0
  5. “the decor, though not my taste, takes this place up a notch”

    It looks like a Horchow catalog threw up in there. Which isn’t necessarily bad, just very taste specific and edging into Liberace territory.

    0
    0
  6. not saying I love the decor, but my recollection of this building (which is from 20 years ago!) is that it’s definitely a higher caliber building than some of the nearby ones cited (2650, 2626 even 2800). Very few units, all 2BR (or more), higher quality construction, larger rooms, etc., so it’s not really fair to compare to much larger buildings with lots of studios/one brs.

    I’ve always been curious as to whether the fact that it sat vacant as a shell for a few years would impact the structure long term, but if it’s made it 30 years, it should be good for the long haul!

    0
    0
  7. That’s a good point about it being a higher-caliber building than the others I cited. No doubt, there’s truth to that, with no 1 BR or 2 BR units, and it was originally built as more of a luxury bldg than those and always has been.

    From my perspective, I just don’t know if a 2 BR here is worth twice as much to me as one half a mile away with possibly a better view and more amenities, but the “luxury” thing has never meant as much to me.

    0
    0
  8. Oops – I meant with no studio or 1 BR units, not no 2 BR units. I’m sure you all knew what I meant!

    0
    0
  9. As JAH notes, this building’s in a different league than the Lakeview Ave highrises of a comparable vintage. It’s somewhat on par with 2400, as both were built as condos (unlike 2626 and 2650), but I’d say it’s a step above because of the two unit per floor factor.

    A $1,200/mo fee for a 1,600 sq ft unit in a doorman building on the park, with a parking space, with heat and a/c covered…show me the comp that says that these fees are high. As I mentioned in the Wrightwood 3/2 thread, the fees on a 1600 sq foot unit in 2626 or 2650 (and 2400) are as much if not more than this unit (if you want parking), and from what I can tell, this building (i) is generally better cared for and (ii) simply has fewer units. And it likely has far fewer units in desperate need of updating (I imagine that it has some other units that need a complete update, but 2400, 2626 and 2650 have tons, including lots of 1 and 2 beds).

    It’s on the sixth floor. It overlooks a huge expanse of the park, from the north all the way to the skyline, with a vast lake view. If anything, some of LSD might be obscured by the park, which is a plus. The broker might want to take an hour out of his or her extremely valuable time to take a couple of new pics to better showcase the views (not just better pics of the lake, but current pics of Grandmother’s Gardens, etc.).

    The initial ask was obviously a joke. But now that it’s at $699k, if it can close in the (very?) low $600’s, it seems pretty reasonable (given what they paid and how long they’ve held it, unless they ATM’d the place beyond the cost of the renovations, they should be motivated). I seem to recall another unit closing in the $600’s not long ago. It’s a decent option for an upper middle class one-kid family, and a great option for empty nesters (visiting grandchildren could do worse in terms of locations).

    0
    0
  10. I agree it’s a good empty nester or one-kid option. Personally, I’d want to be on a higher floor. I like dramatic views. But for a low floor, this view is quite good.

    0
    0
  11. Agree with Anonny about the pics. If I was selling a $900k condo in Lincoln Park and my agent couldn’t be bothered to take a second set of pictures on a sunny day to highlight the view, I would fire them.

    0
    0
  12. whoops. I picked up the March 2011 price. Even at $700k I would fire the agent 🙂

    0
    0
  13. This condo overlooking Central Park on Central Park West would be asking at least $3 million. Overlooking Lincoln Park and the lake is at least as nice if not better than CPW.

    0
    0
  14. Here’s why it pays to be on a higher floor in 2314. Check out the views in the unit below:

    http://www.coldwellbankeronline.com/property/details/1122772/MLS-CBRB2037/2314-N-Lincoln-Park-West-Chicago-IL-60614.aspx

    0
    0
  15. ‘This condo overlooking Central Park on Central Park West would be asking at least $3 million. Overlooking Lincoln Park and the lake is at least as nice if not better than CPW.’

    Possibly, but I’m sure you’re aware that real estate is primarily guided by location, right? Chicago RE, on a psf basis, is worth a small fraction of Manhattan RE. The owners here aren’t competing with Central Park West co-ops. They’re competing with Lincoln Park condo owners.

    0
    0
  16. “The owners here aren’t competing with Central Park West co-ops. They’re competing with Lincoln Park condo owners.”

    CPW co-ops? I was under the impression that condos are more common there, with more co-ops on the UES, particularly in terms of CPW v. 5th Ave.

    The units in this building aren’t exactly competing with “Lincoln Park condo owners.” They’re competing with buildings, be they condo or co-op, along LPW and Lakeview Ave, as well as a small stretch of Fullerton, and then to some modest extent buildings along a small stretch of North, an even smaller stretch of Diversey, as well as buildings on LSD from roughly Chicago to North and from Diversey to a few blocks north of Belmont.

    0
    0
  17. @JJJ, since nobody else did it, I checked. Lots of refi’s, but appears to be just one mortgage now from 2009 with a face of $350k.

    I hate hate hate hate hate this building. The city should have never allowed this piece of crap to be built on top of the gorgeous Belden Stratford.

    0
    0
  18. I too hate this POS building for defiling a historic structure (neighboring Belden-Stratford). And this unit is grossly overpriced compared to everything else in the area.

    0
    0
  19. “I too hate this POS building for defiling a historic structure (neighboring Belden-Stratford).”

    Totally agree.

    “And this unit is grossly overpriced compared to everything else in the area.”

    I’m on the edge of my seat here, patiently awaiting any support of the contention that an ask of $699k (which obviously means a closing in the low $600’s, similar to the most recent sale in the building), with $1,200/mo assessements, is “grossly overpriced” compared to all the other 1,600 sq foot 2/2.5 units in doorman buildings (which contain no more than two units per floor) on the park, which have been recently updated, and which include a parking space and in-unit w/d.

    0
    0

Leave a Reply