Loft Lovers Don’t Have To Sacrifice Space In This 3-Bedroom Townhouse: 1140 W. Cornelia in Lakeview

This 3-bedroom townhouse at 1140 W. Cornelia in Lakeview came on the market in May 2012.

This is a property for loft lovers who have graduated from the 1-bedroom version and now need space.

Like your standard loft, it has exposed brick walls and timber ceilings.

But it also has 3 levels including a family room on the lower level along with two of the three bedrooms.

There is also a private roof top deck and garage parking.

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

Originally listed for $625,000, it has been reduced to $599,900 which is about $25,000 above the 2008 purchase price.

Is this townhouse a good single family home alternative for this neighborhood at this price?

Michael O’Connor at Dream Town Realty  has the listing. See the pictures here.

Unit #A: 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, 2000 square feet, 1 car parking

  • Sold in November 2000 for $410,000
  • Sold in May 2008 for $575,000
  • Assessments of $200 a month
  • Taxes of $8572
  • Central Air
  • Private roof deck: 25×15
  • Bedroom #1: 19×13 (second level)
  • Bedroom #2: 16×13 (lower level)
  • Bedroom #3: 16×12 (lower level)
  • Family room: 16×12 (lower level)

 

30 Responses to “Loft Lovers Don’t Have To Sacrifice Space In This 3-Bedroom Townhouse: 1140 W. Cornelia in Lakeview”

  1. You gotta love it when people find out their particular property is not not affected by the overall market decline. It’s the closest you’re going to get to someone discovering their child “prodigy” isn’t going to be the next Einstein or Neil Armstrong.

    They bought it a few months after Bear Stearns went kablooey, they better like living here for awhile or better be able to bring a substantial check to closing. My guess is the former.

    0
    0
  2. It is not open or light filled like I would imagine a loft. Seems more like a modern townhouse with exposed brick…but not really a loft. Chicago needs to understand that exposed brick, modern finishes and exposed duct work do not equal loft.

    0
    0
  3. Some of the ceilings appear very low and claustrophobic. From the pictures this place doesn’t appear particularly special either. I’m not sure why this seller thinks he’s so special that his property value increased while everyone else’s decreased. I think the 2000 price is about right.

    0
    0
  4. ” I’m not sure why this seller thinks he’s so special that his property value increased while everyone else’s decreased.”

    I’m seeing a lot of listings where it seems like the seller isn’t so much trying to make the insane profit of the boom years so much as they are trying to be able to walk away with their transaction costs covered AND a downpayment for the next home.

    0
    0
  5. I had a friend that owned one of these units. I thought it was quite nice at the time – circa 1999. A lot of space and more townhome like. The place needs a little updating now, but this could be a good alternative to the ubiquitous duplex down.

    0
    0
  6. I kind of like it. except the bathroom sinks which resemble urinals

    0
    0
  7. Way better than a duplex down for a similar price, Its not spectacular but that is reflected in the price. Garage parking is a plus too.

    0
    0
  8. I’ll agree this is better than a duplex down, but in fact I am not sure why. 2 of the 3 bedrooms are still in the basement. It kinda just seems like a duplex down with the master bedroom duplexed up.

    I don’t think the layout would be good for a family with the kids bedrooms down two floors.

    0
    0
  9. still not sure why everyone hates the duplex fown on this site. My wife would love that walk in closet….

    0
    0
  10. “still not sure why everyone hates the duplex fown on this site. My wife would love that walk in closet….”

    I know, I know, Icarus get the wiki out….

    Basically the duplex down means you have at least 1 bedroom in the ‘basement” which is fine as a guest room or office but not practical for raising children.

    0
    0
  11. No comments on da CS numbas?

    0
    0
  12. I think they should have used a better photographer. It has to be possible to make this look less like a cramped 1 bed high rise and more like a 2,000 sq ft townhouse. As for the duplex down, most people don’t want to sleep in the basement, and most families don’t want their (younger) kids sleeping on a different floor.

    0
    0
  13. interesting that the low and mid tier saw a slight bump up for April, while the high tier continued to decline (now at May ’01 levels, and a new post-bubble low)

    Condos also ticked up (Feb ’00 levels)

    homedelete (June 26, 2012, 12:51 pm)
    No comments on da CS numbas?

    0
    0
  14. Shamalamadingdong on June 26th, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    A family can’t live in this place with the layout. Roof deck space is sweet dude. Everything else? Not so much.

    Agree with StanfordMom that they can do a much better job with the photographs… especially if you want to sell this place for $600k.

    C’mon maaaan…

    0
    0
  15. I dunno about this whole “no kids in the basement” thing, I knew quite a few *very* well off kids who seemed thrilled as all get-out to have been given a bedroom (and essentially free reign) in the basement. The advantage seemed to be mom & dad got more peace and quiet upstairs, and could do the eyes-and-ears-covered “LA LA LA” thing as far as the kids were concerned.

    0
    0
  16. “I don’t think the layout would be good for a family with the kids bedrooms down two floors.”

    Pfft, talk about an ideal setup… especially if your kid is the night terror or screamer type!

    0
    0
  17. That might be true for teenagers, but not young kids.

    “I dunno about this whole “no kids in the basement” thing, I knew quite a few *very* well off kids who seemed thrilled as all get-out to have been given a bedroom (and essentially free reign) in the basement. The advantage seemed to be mom & dad got more peace and quiet upstairs, and could do the eyes-and-ears-covered “LA LA LA” thing as far as the kids were concerned.”

    0
    0
  18. 60 months of year/year price declines for both SA and NSA SFH for Chicago.
    55 months of year/year price declines for both SA and NSA CND for Chicago.

    On a national level the Y/Y declines were only abated with the free 8k tax credit, only to resume later.

    0
    0
  19. A friend I used to work with lives in the Midwest.
    She paid $500k for a 1BR back in 2005…
    (At the time, I thought it was the most idiotic thing ever)

    It is totally underwater today, and they are moving to NJ.

    1) They bought another house in NJ. (How they got a 2nd mortgage for a total of almost $1m on a $150k salary is beyond me)

    2) They just sold the 1BR short for $300k.
    So, the bank eats the $200k!

    3) Bad credit lower for 2 years?
    Moot point, b/c they already have new house and car…

    Owning real estate is genius…
    Heads I win, tails you lose

    I believe they put 0% down.
    They might have even gotten cash back at the closing!

    I do not know if their monthly nut was less than renting the same property.
    But, in almost all cases (outside of NYC) owning is vastly cheaper than renting.

    In my experience, renters rent b/c they are too stupid (or undisciplined) to save up a downpayment.
    So, they lose.

    I think they paid $450k, but today had a mortgage of $490k
    They also may have taken out a $40,000 HELOC loan to help her quit working after her baby.

    Their monthly cost was also fixed for 7 years.

    Sucker renters would realize none of these benefits.

    Oh, if the bank doesn’t allow a short sale, STOP paying.
    Oh, do I have your attention NOW?
    Right, that reminds me, they also lived rent free for a good year. (FREE $50,000 )
    Where do you think they saved up that downpayment for the next house so quickly?

    When buyers win this fucking big, even when a property gets CRUSHED,
    you just have to laugh at the imbeciles who say renting is better b/c the landlord pays for the paint.

    Talk about low IQ shortsightedness.

    0
    0
  20. The 2011/pay2012 tax rate and equalization factors just announced.

    Non special service districts in Chicago: rate went from 4.931% to 5.455%. The e.f. went from 3.3 to.2.9706%, so effective rate as % of assessor’s market value is badically unchanged at 1.620% vs 1.627%. However, the max homeowner’s exemption

    0
    0
  21. However, the max homeowner’s exemption will drop from 16,000 to 12,000 of assessed value, so bills will rise ~$218 for the year for those with that benefit.

    0
    0
  22. “Talk about low IQ shortsightedness.”

    No need to mention it, Amy. It permeates your being.

    0
    0
  23. “badically unchanged”

    perfect

    0
    0
  24. I’d never had much of an issue w/ the duplex down… but this past weekend, when over at my brother’s, I realized a potential issue w/ the basement bedrooms — they’re below the kitchen, etc. so people with shoes on walking on wood floors means lots of noise in room below. Which would make it hard to have people over, etc. with kiddies in bed.

    0
    0
  25. Ahh it’s Amy the house pusher is back with her stupid anecdotes about how successful home owners are. And Amy works in “high finance”, which I take to mean that she’s a realtard with a blow habit.

    0
    0
  26. “However, the max homeowner’s exemption will drop from 16,000 to 12,000 of assessed value, so bills will rise ~$218 for the year for those with that benefit.”

    Hm. Unless I’m calculating wrong (possible), my total bill will be $90.xx higher.

    For a o-o with the HOE, it’s [(AV*EqF)-12,000]*rate = tax, correct?

    0
    0
  27. Yes, you are correct. Thanks for paying attention. That’s what I get for posting something like that from my phone. An owner occupied house with an assessor’s market value of $650k will pay $90 more with an effective rate of 1.52%. A $1.5M house will pay $33 more with an effective rate of 1.58%. A $200k house will pay $121 more with an effective rate of 1.29%.

    0
    0
  28. I was following her logic until she (Amy) unexpectedly and abruptly went ballistic on renters. I am a Realtor (or realtard..lol) and there’s absolutely no way anyone could use such a specific rare example of her ‘friend’ who somehow falls into every perfect scenerio which Amy even hints to as not being likely – which is because it isn’t. It doesn’t add up. Let’s break it down shall we… Friend bought for $500k in in 2005. 0% down. Then just moved to Jersey (sorry). Somehow got mortgage for $500k Jersey home while still owning 1st and making only $150k. Not possible but let’s run with it. Oh wait… forgot at end mentions ‘lived rent free for a year saving up down payment. So that means they got that Jersey loan for $500k while still owning the other property AND they’re not paying mortgage on it. We can stop right there. No reason to highlight the rest of the B.S. that Amy pulled out of her ass. I actually don’t think she’s a Realtor because although we have our faults, we know what it takes to get a loan and what can and can’t be done. So although the basics of Amy’s little tale is probably true. What’s written is not.

    0
    0
  29. Strange, for a facade that has many windows, the listing pics barely show any rooms with them.

    0
    0
  30. Ugh, the three bathrooms sinks are everything I dislike: a pedestal sink with no storage below, an above-mount sink with laminate, and two homo “bowl” sinks that are going down in history as the stupidest bathroom fad ever.

    0
    0

Leave a Reply