Trying To Sell Just 2 Years Later In Lakeview: A 2-Bedroom At 653 W. Buckingham

This 2-bedroom at 653 W. Buckingham in Lakeview came on the market in July 2012.

But it had last sold just over two years ago in April 2010.

It has a lot of its vintage features including dark wood window frames, a wood fireplace mantel, beamed ceilings and a built-in hutch in the dining room.

The kitchen has been updated with cherry cabinets, stainless steel appliances and granite counter tops.

It also has a marble bath.

The unit not only has 2-bedrooms but also a 12×11 den.

It has in-unit washer/dryer and a parking space but no central air (window units only.)

If you like outdoor spaces, it has both front and back balconies.

Since July it has been reduced $10,000 and is now listed $1,000 under the 2010 price.

Is this going back to the 2002 price?

Colleen Bansley at Conlon has the listing. See the pictures here.

Unit #1: 2 bedrooms, 1 bath, 1500 square feet, den

  • Sold in January 1989 for $130,500
  • Sold in March 1992 for $152,500
  • Sold in May 1995 for $158,000
  • Sold in February 2002 for $290,000
  • Sold in April 2010 for $330,000
  • Originally listed in July 2012 for $339,000
  • Reduced
  • Currently listed for $329,000
  • Assessments of $255 a month
  • Taxes of $4947
  • No central air
  • In-unit washer/dryer
  • Parking space included
  • Bedroom #1: 13×10
  • Bedroom #2: 12×9
  • Dining room: 15×12
  • Den: 12×11

14 Responses to “Trying To Sell Just 2 Years Later In Lakeview: A 2-Bedroom At 653 W. Buckingham”

  1. Like the vintage detail but hate 1st floor and price. Ridiculous

    0
    0
  2. i though hmm not a bad place.

    then i realized dear gosh somebody want you to pay 330k for a 1st floor place WITHOUT central air, and only one bathroom! and clearly the sqft calc is pulling the balconies.

    sorry this is a rental not a place to own.

    and really i like the idea of the lighting up the built in, but come on why make the background baby blue with that color wood?

    0
    0
  3. I think it’s cute. First floor is tough. I’m wondering based on this listing and the last one on Burling if perceptions on cribchatter are lagging behind what’s really going on in the market – I guess time will tell.

    0
    0
  4. This is a great block. So is Burling. The units seem pretty similar. I think both are overpriced. It comes down to what neighborhood do you like better and is being on the first floor a real problem. I wouldn’t want to be on the first floor, but I do like Buckingham and Broadway better than Diversey and Burling.

    0
    0
  5. $290. Can someone explain to me what’s so awful about being on the first floor? It’s not a garden unit. It’s not at grade. It’s a half flight up, just like about 1/4 of homes in Lakeview. And you don’t have to hike up two flights of stairs with your groceries groceries or pay the crazy assessments most of the run-down elevator buildings in Lakeview are charging.

    0
    0
  6. It is over priced, seeing similar properties offering more for far less. It is a walk up, I suspect that a lot of people would want an elevator building, even if run down. Sorry to say, you will have a very long wait to sell this property at this price.

    0
    0
  7. You might want to look at the market for similar properties, I think it might be helpful. I wonder why you want to sell after only two years. Could this property be a flip?

    0
    0
  8. I prefer higher floor for typical reasons of being above it all, but thinking ahead to knee problems and elderly dog, a first floor with a back yard looks more practical.

    0
    0
  9. This is back on the market not even a year later.

    It sold for $314,500 in Dec 2012. It’s now listed for $325,000.

    The last seller lost money. Same with this one.

    0
    0
  10. Must be something about the neighbors…

    0
    0
  11. Good point about the neighbors. The great unknown when buying, along with whether the condo board is good. I wish there was a good way to check them out along with the physicals and financials.

    0
    0
  12. Of course they “lost money.” Did you expect them not to have any housing costs? The question is how their housing costs compare to an equivalent rental. Obviously, the transaction costs on short-term ownership are killer. Most people (hopefully) know that.

    I agree Sonies’ guess is a likely reason for the multiple quick moves. Or perhaps safety/break-in concerns on this first floor unit?

    Fwiw, 3W sold for $315k in 2011. It had a closed-off 3rd bedroom but not an updated kitchen.

    Sabrina:
    “This is back on the market not even a year later.

    It sold for $314,500 in Dec 2012. It’s now listed for $325,000.

    The last seller lost money. Same with this one.”

    0
    0
  13. “Did you expect them not to have any housing costs? The question is how their housing costs compare to an equivalent rental.”

    Do you lose $20,000 in a year on an “equivalent rental”?

    Come on. Ownership is a LONG TERM thing. Anyone who thinks they can buy and sell within 3 years or less and come out with a gain (without rehabbing etc.) is nuts. YOU WILL LOSE MONEY! LOTS OF IT!

    And when mortgage rates rise again (which they will)- it will become even more difficult to sell because the next purchaser will be paying a much higher price.

    You should only be buying if you’re going to live there 10 years.

    0
    0
  14. “Must be something about the neighbors…”

    Yet another reason to rent v. buy.

    0
    0

Leave a Reply