Get A “Restored” Lincoln Park 3-Bedroom For $499,000: 2227 N. Bissell

This second floor 3-bedroom at 2227 N. Bissell in Lincoln Park has been on the market since June 2012.

It recently reduced $56,000 and is now a short sale.

Two lis pendens foreclosures were also filed in June 2012.

The listing says this vintage unit in a 3-flat has been “restored.”

It now has an open kitchen with some white appliances, white cabinets and a tile backsplash.

There’s a fireplace and a private deck.

The unit has the features buyers look for including central air, washer/dryer in the unit and garage parking.

It is NOT on the El side of the street.

Can a 3/2 with 1600 square feet command $500,000 these days (even in Lincoln Park)?

Carol Buchen at Century 21 1st Class Homes has the listing. See the pictures here.

Unit #2: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1600 square feet, 1 car garage parking

  • Sold in June 1997 for $345,000
  • Sold in December 1999 for $393,500
  • Sold in June 2002 for $470,000
  • Sold in July 2006 for $535,000
  • Two lis pendens foreclosures filed in June 2012
  • Originally listed in June 2012 for $550,000
  • Reduced
  • Currently listed as a “short sale” for $499,000
  • Assessments of $125 a month
  • Taxes of $7578
  • Central Air
  • Washer/Dryer in the unit
  • Bedroom #1: 13×12
  • Bedroom #2: 12×12
  • Bedroom #3: 10×10


8 Responses to “Get A “Restored” Lincoln Park 3-Bedroom For $499,000: 2227 N. Bissell”

  1. Are these people morons? Gee, we just got a foreclosure filed against us, I know, let’s list for more than we paid close to the height of the bubble!

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  2. The interior photos are horrid. I can’t tell anything about this unit from looking at them, except that it appears to be dark and the kitchen window looks directly into a brick wall. Whoever is trying to sell this place isn’t getting their money’s worth from the broker.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  3. Absent showing an open toilet that had been used I can’t imagine how the interior pictures could be worse. I understand its a short sale but would not that be all the more reason to show it in its best light?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  4. “Can a 3/2 with 1600 square feet command $500,000 these days (even in Lincoln Park)?” No

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)
  5. “‘Can a 3/2 with 1600 square feet command $500,000 these days (even in Lincoln Park)?’ No”

    While I would agree that 1600 sq ft is too small for a 3 bed (it’s right for a nice sized 2 bed), saying that 1600 sq ft (be it a 2 or 3 bed) can’t command $500k in LP is, well…

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)
  6. Seriously, seriously overpriced and depressing. More critically, assessments of $125/mo. Besides all the delights of a very small association, that’s a major red flag. If you want to live in a place like this, there is no obvious reason why you shouldn’t rent. That way when the other two owners don’t want a special to fix (insert building issue of your choice), you can just move plus it says “rental” to me. July of 2006… such a bad time to buy with 20/20 hindsight. Agree re listing photos; Sabrina’s picture is a ton better and I think I could do better with my cellphone. I wonder if anyone will ever even look given price and pictures. Sorry to the seller but this is going nowhere fast.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  7. I own a unit right around here and it SUPER easy to rent. I don’t think the numbers work on this one but perhaps around $425 you can make it work. 1 bd rend for $1400-$1500/mth or even more. I assume 3 Bd would rent well to DePaul students.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)
  8. “Sorry to the seller but this is going nowhere fast.”

    When it’s a short sale- isn’t the “seller” simply the bank?

    And as we’ve seen over the last 5 years- when has a bank ever cared about a property?

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

Leave a Reply