1849 n cleveland approved

Want A 4-Bedroom Old Town Duplex Down Without All The Bedrooms In The Basement? 1847 N. Cleveland

Feb 5 • Old Town • 295 Views • 24 Comments

We’ve chattered about this vintage greystone building at 1847 N. Cleveland in Old Town several times over the years.

This 4-bedroom duplex down just came on the market.

The listing says it is extra wide and it has a fireplace and moldings.

The kitchen has 42 inch cabinets, granite counter tops and stainless steel appliances.

2 of the bedrooms are on the main floor and 2 are in the lower level along with the family room.

It has all the other features you would expect including washer/dryer in the unit, central air and 1-car secured parking.

The unit has come on the market for just about $10,000 above the 2008 purchase price at $849,000.

Is $850,000 the top of the range for a property like this?

Or could we see $1 million duplex downs?

Rachel Krueger at Coldwell Banker has the listing. See the pictures here.

Unit #1S: 4 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, no square footage listed

  • Sold in August 2000 for $519,000
  • Sold in May 2002 for $652,000
  • Sold in June 2004 for $750,000
  • Sold in August 2008 for $839,500
  • Currently listed at $849,000
  • Assessments of $275 a month
  • Taxes of $7720
  • Central Air
  • Washer/Dryer in the unit
  • 1-car parking included
  • Bedroom #1: 17×12 (main floor)
  • Bedroom #2: 12×11 (main floor)
  • Bedroom #3: 12×12 (lower level)
  • Bedroom #4: 12×11 (lower level)
  • Family room: 25×18 (lower level)

Related Posts

24 Responses to Want A 4-Bedroom Old Town Duplex Down Without All The Bedrooms In The Basement? 1847 N. Cleveland

  1. Trudi says:

    Finishings are totally sub par for the price. Astonished, even in this location, that someone would pay that

    2002 price looks good to me.

  2. anon (tfo) says:

    “Finishings are totally sub par for the price.”

    What are you expecting to see different? A $25k appliance package, instead of a $7k one? What else?

  3. yoss says:

    I don’t think 2002 is happening – days of those days are over. Seems over priced relative to:
    http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/156-W-Eugenie-St-60614/home/13344791
    My guess is 2004 price is where it settles – $750k.

  4. Benjamon9 says:

    This type of layout is definitely my favorite for duplex downs although at least to me from the pictures the living/dining/kitchen seem a little squished together.

    $850k is hard to swallow for a duplex down. If it goes for this much I have a hard time seeing upward potential for the future.

  5. Trudi says:

    “What are you expecting to see different? A $25k appliance package, instead of a $7k one? What else?”

    Where to begin……The appliances are only the start. The bathroom glass shower, not being frameless?! The bathroom faucets, lighing, vanities and tile? The $20 ceiling fan in the master bedroom? I can’t tell if there is backsplash or not in the kitchen, so another knock as well. The granite and cabinets are Home Depot standards.

    Agree that it won’t go as low as the 2002 price, but that seems like what a sane person would pay for it.

  6. Trudi says:

    “although at least to me from the pictures the living/dining/kitchen seem a little squished together.”

    And, just think of it in person if the wide angle of the photos makes it looks tight.

  7. anon (tfo) says:

    “The bathroom glass shower, not being frameless?!”

    Seems pretty similar to this:

    http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/60-E-Monroe-St-60603/unit-1701/home/21793069

    Mostly, looking around, the masters have separate tub, which this place apparently doesn’t have space for, and the second bath (with combo) doesn’t have glass of any sort–relying on a curtain, I guess.

    Just taking the framed shower doors out would certainly photograph better.

  8. anonny says:

    “My guess is 2004 price is where it settles – $750k.”

    Sounds about right.

  9. TB says:

    Since 2000, this place had had 4 occupants, with an averare residency of just 3 years. A 3 year apartment doesn’t sound like a great use of $850,000 to me

  10. yoss says:

    ” TB (February 5, 2013, 2:01 pm)
    Since 2000, this place had had 4 occupants, with an averare residency of just 3 years. A 3 year apartment doesn’t sound like a great use of $850,000 to me”
    Good point regarding turnover. This seems to be temporary apartment where families stop on their way to either a SFH or the burbs. The flip side is this place seems pretty desirable and liquid given it has sold 4 times in 13 years – and each successive time for a higher price. I think that streak will be broken this time however.

  11. looking to buy says:

    In my opinion, this street/location is phenomenal. I think the location is much better than the webster duplex down that was chatted about the other day. But of course, this is Old Town Triangle and I’m probably not the only one thinking this.

    I bet this trades above 800.

  12. oilc says:

    Who want to sleep in a basement, let alone for 800k. stupid people, if you can’t afford something above grade then move to a different greenzone. I don’t know who buys this crap.

  13. yoss says:

    ” looking to buy (February 5, 2013, 2:18 pm)
    In my opinion, this street/location is phenomenal.”
    I agree.

    “I think the location is much better than the webster duplex down that was chatted about the other day.”
    I agree.

    “But of course, this is Old Town Triangle and I’m probably not the only one thinking this.”
    It is not in OTT. It is in Old Town however.

    “I bet this trades above 800.”
    I could see that.

  14. BE says:

    Love the space and the location. Finishes are decent, but I agree they seem a bit subpar for the price. However, the location and lack of inventory will probably help this sell above $800.

  15. anonny says:

    “Since 2000, this place had had 4 occupants, with an averare residency of just 3 years. A 3 year apartment doesn’t sound like a great use of $850,000 to me”

    So, if one (i) wants a fairly large place in the OTT with a parking space,etc., (ii) has or is expecting a baby, (ii) intends to have a second baby within a couple of years after the first, (iii) has $100k to put down (assuming this was a 10% down deal, plus some change for moving, minor decorating tweaks, etc.; the amounts were less for the previous two), and is fairly confident about pulling together, say, $200k within a few years for the next down (to be enhanced, under normal circumstances, by whatever equity one walks away with after a broker’s fee), how should one live for a few-year period? There aren’t a whole lot of nice 3+ bedrooms with a parking space in OTT/ELP/NE GC that rent for what the (10% down) carry on this place is, and none provide the renter with an interest tax deduction (which interest amount is most of the outlay for those first few years; many of the likely buyers of this place could sure benefit from such a deduction, given their likely exposure to the AMT and the student debt they’re paying, which payments provide no tax deduction). I wouldn’t buy this place, but I can certainly see why it’s a viable short term (3-5 year) option for plenty of folks.

  16. mda says:

    Aren’t egress windows supposed to be less than 44″ above the floor? Those basement bedrooms don’t look like they comply.

  17. DZ says:

    “So, if [blah blah blah blah blah] how should one live for a few-year period? ”

    Just rent something. Not as perfect sure but who really cares. And then when it’s time to buy you’re not trying to hatch up some complicated plan involving renoing, selling, maybe renting, and then buying. You can just buy your long term home.

  18. anon (tfo) says:

    “Just rent something.”

    I heard that renting is for losers.

  19. DZ says:

    “I heard that renting is for losers.”

    I heard that HD bought a place.

  20. Sabrina says:

    “(ii) has or is expecting a baby, (ii) intends to have a second baby within a couple of years after the first, (iii) has $100k to put down (assuming this was a 10% down deal, plus some change for moving, minor decorating tweaks, etc.; the amounts were less for the previous two), and is fairly confident about pulling together, say, $200k within a few years for the next down (to be enhanced, under normal circumstances, by whatever equity one walks away with after a broker’s fee), how should one live for a few-year period?”

    The short term is no longer “viable.” I tell all the people even remotely thinking about having children that they had better be thinking about 10 years. The Baby Boomers would NEVER have thought, “gee, I’m going to buy a condo and live in it with my toddler for 3 years.” Of course- Chicago sucked when they were of childbearing age so that could be why they immediately just bought a house right after marriage in the suburbs.

    The housing market has changed. You cannot buy something with the expectation of only living there 3 to 5 years. Even when we get 3% appreciation a year (which we’re still not getting)- with realtor fees and transfer taxes and other fees, you will have to live there a minimum of 3 years just to break even. And that’s in a perfect world.

    But I agree with you anonny- there are no viable rental options either. So what’s your choices? You buy a house in a suburban neighborhood that will fit your family’s needs for 10 to 20 years and be done with it. Because you risk losing money (maybe quite a bit) if you buy for only a 3 year holding period. Real estate, with all the fees, wasn’t meant to be such a short term buy.

  21. chichow says:

    It’s not the Triangle, but its in a damn nice spot.

    I’ve always wondered but been too lazy to GTHOOI on how much the place directly across the street trades for; it’s next to the park

  22. chichow says:

    Is it THAT hard to rent a decent 3 bedroom w/ a parking spot?

  23. Sabrina says:

    “Is it THAT hard to rent a decent 3 bedroom w/ a parking spot?”

    With similar finishes and amenities in that location? (i.e. central air, w/d, stainless steel appliances)- I would say it’s pretty rare. You could try and find a condo- but you’d pay through the nose for it. All the rentals are old and subpar. This is why everyone bought condos in the first place. And it’s also why people are paying $5000 a month to rent a small, no view 2/2 in 2520 Lincoln Park (the new Lincoln Park high rise). There really aren’t any other alternatives.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

« »