Looking For 3 Bedrooms In The Gold Coast For Under $425K? 1555 N. Sandburg Terrace

This 3-bedroom in a mid-rise building in Sandburg Village at 1555 N. Sandburg in the Gold Coast (or is this Old Town? The listing calls it Old Town) just came on the market.

This unit has been renovated.

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

The master bathroom is marble and granite.

The east facing unit has a long private balcony.

It also now has a washer/dryer in the unit (which was added since the last sale) and central air. Parking is leased for $150 a month in the building.

Is this a deal for someone who wants 3-bedrooms in this location?

Randee Shapiro Simborg at Baird & Warner has the listing. See the pictures here.

Unit #302: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, no square footage listed

  • Sold in November 1993 for $135,000
  • Sold in May 2001 for $325,000
  • Sold in June 2008 for $450,000
  • Currently listed for $412,000
  • Assessmenst of $879 a month (includes heat, ac, doorman, cable)
  • Master Association fee: $84 a month
  • Taxes of $5189
  • Central Air
  • Washer/Dryer in the unit
  • Leased parking at $150 a month
  • Bedroom #1: 19×11
  • Bedroom #2: 12×10
  • Bedroom #3: 15×11

29 Responses to “Looking For 3 Bedrooms In The Gold Coast For Under $425K? 1555 N. Sandburg Terrace”

  1. This specific unit has had two recent prior sales, and the kitchen, baths, and flooring were installed by prior owner(s). Looks like this owner just bought the furniture. Wonder why the unit will have turned over three times in fairly rapid succession.

  2. “This specific unit has had two recent prior sales, and the kitchen, baths, and flooring were installed by prior owner(s).”

    I can’t see any pictures on the old listing from 2008 but the listing description just says it is a newer kitchen with white appliances. Maybe all this owner did was swap out appliances and put in the washer/dryer. But a washer/dryer install can be $5k to $10k.

    Here’s the old listing:

    “RARELY AVAILABLE 3 BEDROOM 2BATH CORNER UNIT AT KILMER WITH EAST EXPOSURE & EXTRA LONG BALCONY. #302 FEELS LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME FEATURING DIAGONAL HARDWOOD FLOORS IN LR, KITCHEN & 3RD BEDROOM, NEWER KITCHEN W/ WHITE GE APPLIANCES, NEWER BATHS & ALL NEW THERMAL WINDOWS. WASHER & DRYER ALLOWED. HEAT, AIR & CABLE INC IN ASSESSMENT. 1-40LB. DOG ALLOWED.”

  3. “Wonder why the unit will have turned over three times in fairly rapid succession.”

    First owner owned for 7 years. Second for 5 years. That’s “rapid succession” of a condo? You’re kidding, right?

  4. The interior is nicer than I imagined given the ugly exterior.

  5. The location is good – but to many people the whole “sandburg village” feels like a 70s Russian housing community or public housing development. If you can get over that, then this would be a sensible place to live.

  6. This is one of those buildings that is past its prime and needs to be sold in its entirety to a developer. The units are worth not much more than land value. If each sold for 500,000 a luxury developer (think Elysian type) could build full floor condos from 1.5+. This would happen on NYC but for some reason it never happens in Chicago. Even great neighborhoods like GC have some really crappy buildings.

  7. Really? I think this building is a lot better looking that a number of the 1950′s and 60′s buildings around, and particularly with new windows, etc., I don’t see these units selling anywhere near as cheaply as to approach land value.

    BUT–one big issue, even if that were the case. Not sure how the Master rules/association of Sandburg village is set up. I doubt that it would allow the owners in one of the buildings to “secede” or tear down their building a broader approval from the master association. Also, not clear how much of the land they own & would be able to sell, since I assume that much of the area around the building would be owned by the community as a whole & not the owners of one building?!

    urban mommy (February 1, 2013, 9:19 am)
    This is one of those buildings that is past its prime and needs to be sold in its entirety to a developer. The units are worth not much more than land value. If each sold for 500,000 a luxury developer (think Elysian type) could build full floor condos from 1.5+.

  8. “This would happen on NYC but for some reason it never happens in Chicago.”

    This really happens in nyc? Individual condo owners agree to sell off an entire building?

  9. It happens in Chicago, too, though not as frequently:
    http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/article/20121206/CRED0701/121209880/

  10. Nice size, good location, nicely updated. Exterior isn’t the best, but whatever. Seems like a very good value at that price. I suspect it will go fast.

  11. Re: selling the building:

    1. I just did the math. 96 units in this building per info I saw online. Even assuming that the “average” unit is worth $275K – $300K, this piece of land would need to be worth $30 Million or more to justify.

    2. Not sure there’s huge demand for another Elysian type building right now, and those this location is at the edge of the prime Gold Coast & next to the Park, you have negatives in terms of being a bit further to the lake and closer to high traffic areas along north/Lasalle

    3. Each owners of the 96 units would have different timing, priority, interests; In a bulk sale, the units would be valued based upon ownership percentage, which would reward those whose units are in rundown original condition, and penalize anyone who has done recent renovations. It would be very hard to get the “supermajority” that most by-laws would require to sell a building as a whole. I can only see it happening if an investor/group, over time, buys up units as they become available until they have a large enough block, but that’s not likely to happen other than in an old 4+1.

  12. Actually looks surprisingly nice. But while the building location is obviously great, the fact that it directly fronts Clark is not so great. Not much between that living room and the 22/36 buses.

  13. I’d totally buy this, but the 1 dog rule and diagonal flooring… NEXT!

  14. “It would be very hard to get the “supermajority” that most by-laws would require to sell a building as a whole.”

    Most condo bylaws permit the sale of the entire building if there is a supermajority?

    I suppose you could try to amend the bylaws to permit that w a supermajority, but is there then really nothing that would protect an owner who didn’t want to sell?

  15. sorry—let me clarify. I didn’t mean to suggest (and I have no knowledge) that most condo declarations or bylaws would allow a sale by a supermajority. I meant to suggest that at a MINIMUM they would have to have a supermajority . .. . i.e., that it’s not something a simple majority could make happen. But in some cases it might require 100%, 90%, or . .. .

  16. “This would happen on NYC but for some reason it never happens in Chicago.”
    This really happens in nyc? Individual condo owners agree to sell off an entire building?

    Yes, this happens in NYC where the building is outdated and small (low rise) and the developer can put in a high rise. As long as what is replacing the building has more units and more valuable (luxury finishes), the developers are willing to pay a premium such that even those who renovate get more out of it than they put in. The developer pays over market value but will still profit off other units. Sometimes, the old owners trade their old unit for a new one in the new building, with a huge discount.

  17. I wish the entire Sandburg Village, including townhomes, could be razed and replaced with something designed to acknowledge it’s part of the city rather than turn inward and wall itself off. The town homes are extremely cramped inside, by the way. I can’t imagine there could be much of a market for them these days. I mean who is rich enough to send their kids to Parker of Latin but wants to live in a third-rate 1960s townhome in a development so dominated by concrete?

  18. This kinda reminds me of that Mid-Century Modern that people have been talking about lately. It’s a pretty cool look and I could see it working in this space. However, I think I have too much stuff and am too messy to ever really adopt that lifestyle.

  19. “I mean who is rich enough to send their kids to Parker of Latin but wants to live in a third-rate 1960s townhome in a development so dominated by concrete?”

    Ogden, maybe?

  20. Yeah, that’s a valid response. Ogden is a decent school.

  21. The exterior is better than much of Sandburg and much of the 50′s-70′s era high rises on the North Side. The interior is actually very nice and appropriate for the price point. We my wife and I in a position to move quickly, we’d take a look at this… We’d like to stay in the city even w/ kids, so we’d want a 3/2 condo or townhouse w/ at least 2/2 + den, and this would actually work. Cost and assesments are less than what a 3/2 would run in our current LP high rise, and I’d assume it has access to some of the amenities of Sandburg like pools, etc? Too bad delays in her completing grad school mean we’re still on hold w/ regard to a return to 2 incomes and home shopping

  22. “… to many people the whole “sandburg village” feels like a 70s Russian housing community or public housing development.”

    Built with city funding as an “urban renewal/slum clearance” project, so of course it looks like public housing.

  23. No reason to buy and demolish a building like this where there are empty lots a few blocks away waiting for development.

  24. If the Sandburg development were sufficiently motivated, there’s a lot they could do to make the whole thing look more appealing. I actually like the midrises quite a bit.

  25. Benjy – do you have kids yet, or one on the way? I think this place, with its size and amenities, would work for kids. At least for a while.

  26. Not to get off track, but I always thought the building at Michigan and Oak (1000 LSD?) would be a good one to sell and rip down. Amazing location. Terrible building.

  27. No Stove, only an electric range. It would cost more to cook at home than doing take out every single day.

  28. I couldn’t agree more about the building at 1000 N LSD. I had to pass by that abomination every day when I lived in the neighborhood and I always wondered why some developer didn’t buy the entire building for the value of the land, strip it to the skeleton, and build something nice. Seems like that would be a huge profit opportunity.

  29. Most condo bylaws say something to the effect of the property may be sold if 80% of owners vote in favor. Proceeds would be distributed to owners based on % of ownership as defined in the docs. Obviously the challenge would be in making a good enough offer that most owners would come out ahead and thus be in favor of the buyout.

Leave a Reply


× 3 = eighteen