Will This Gold Coast Teardown Finally Sell In This Hot Market? 67 E. Bellevue

Feb 28 • Gold Coast, Single family homes • 265 Views • 36 Comments

I don’t have a picture of this 5-bedroom single family house at 67 E. Bellevue in the Gold Coast even though it’s been on and off the market since September 2010.

It’s being sold as a teardown. The listing says “sold as is.”

The current house has 3 stories and a 1-car garage on a 17×100 lot.

Built in 1883, it has 4272 square feet. The listing says a 5000 square foot house could be built on the lot.

The listing also says, “facade and real estate tax freeze available to new owner.”

It was originally listed in September 2010 for $1.995 million and has been reduced ever since.

A year ago, in February 2012, it was listed for $1.675 million.

The house is now listed just $25,000 above the 2002 price.

After all these years, will this hot market finally produce a buyer for this property?

What could be built on a lot this size?

Laura Rubin at Baird & Warner has the listing. See the pictures here.

67 E. Bellevue: 5 bedrooms, 3 baths, 4272 square feet, 1 car garage

  • Sold in August 1995 for $530,000
  • Sold in December 2002 for $1.525 million
  • Sold in March 2005 for $1.675 million
  • Originally listed in September 2010 for $1.995 million
  • Reduced numerous times
  • Was listed in February 2012 for $1.675 million
  • Reduced
  • Currently listed at $1.55 million
  • Taxes of $24,958
  • “Facade and real estate tax freeze available to new owner”
  • Being sold as a teardown and “as is”

Related Posts

36 Responses to Will This Gold Coast Teardown Finally Sell In This Hot Market? 67 E. Bellevue

  1. yoss says:

    From the listing – “Finished properties on the street sell for $3M+++”. Total BS. There is a listing down the street OFFERED at 3mm that is completely finished and on a bigger lot (24×130 v 17×100). The better comps would be the places that sold on Elm St for around $1.5-6mm. And those were finished – implying this should be $500-750k lower.

  2. Michael says:

    So you buy something for $1.67 million near the height of the market, live in it ten years, and then try to get almost all of your money back by selling it as a tear-down? Doesn’t quite add up.

  3. a local says:

    This is just not practical for boomers (too many stairs and tough walk to garage) and not big enough for families. The market for this is small. Young couple or couple with baby who are strivers and don’t yet realize the impracticality of the property with kids?

  4. JJJ says:

    I don’t see why this is being marketed as a teardown. Given that it’s a row house, actually tearing anything out and rebuilding is going to be extraordinarily expensive and difficult, and it looks like there is some historical status at least on the facade which will be an additional complication. Interior is not terrible, could easily use $300k in updates but that’s not going to be crazy for many folks looking in this area. As is really kills this one as well. Bad marketing and decision-making all around.

  5. Fred says:

    I guess “Tear Down” has different definitions at different price points…

  6. Vlajos says:

    How is this a teardown? Unless there are structural problems, it just looks like it needs updating. It’s actually quite nice.

  7. Groove77 says:

    “I don’t see why this is being marketed as a teardown. Given that it’s a row house, actually tearing anything out and rebuilding is going to be extraordinarily expensive and difficult, and it looks like there is some historical status at least on the facade which will be an additional complication.”

    no no no. how can they tear down this beauty?

    actually it will be very expensive to tear it down. when dealing with row house you have to spend extra for structural engineers and will need to set up and work around structural support for the buildings on the sides. dotn see way cant keep 3 walls and foundation and build to that?

  8. mh says:

    This is one of those times I wish the realtor could weigh in and explain her reasoning. The listing says “could be redeveloped” – I’m not sure this means teardown necessarily, maybe just an opportunity for an addition / expansion of some sort? And given the lot size, how are they going to get a multiple car garage out of this? Drive in from the front and put a two car tandem garage in the basement?

  9. Homewrecker says:

    Grove 77 is so right about tearing down a structure with adjacent buildings. There was a fairly celebrated case Pam Zekman did about a couple whose property caved in when another owner decided to tear down the house next door. And why is this a tear down? Unless it has huge unseen issues, it’s a beautiful place.

  10. looking to buy says:

    Do you think the realtor meant to say gut rehab? Tear out some drywall, reconfigure some interior walls, build a new garage etc….

  11. Icarus says:

    love the fireplace mantle without a fireplace in one of the pictures. I agree with Vlajos, it looks quite nice and should be restored instead of torn down.

  12. Jenny says:

    This is my dream house. I would love to live here and wouldn’t tear it down. I would much rather live here than Lincoln Park.

  13. Groove77 says:

    “Unless it has huge unseen issues, it’s a beautiful place.”

    but really no matter how bad the issues what would call for a complete tear down. you can shell the thing and leave the fron facade and two side walls, then build out the back.

    if you keep the facade to historic preservation rules you can get a 8-10 year property tax break/freeze plus other incentives. yes you wont be able to build a roof deck with the historic preservation but IIRC you can get a gator deck.

  14. Groove77 says:

    considering this only sold for 1.5 in move in condition and is on the same size lot, how and this place be listed for more in as-is tear down condition?

    http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/51-E-Elm-St-60611/home/14123603

  15. anonny says:

    “considering this only sold for 1.5 in move in condition and is on the same size lot”…

    ….with no parking.

  16. Groove77 says:

    “….with no parking.”

    so the premium for parking is 1.5million extra?

  17. anonny says:

    “so the premium for parking is 1.5million extra?”

    Not sure what you mean. The subject property (with a bungled listing, what a shocker) is listed at around $1.5, and while it needs a little updating, it has a garage. You link to a comp that recently closed for around $1.5 that ostensibly required no updating (though I imagine the buyer will do at least a few things to that kitchen), but includes no parking (not even an outdoor space).

  18. Fred says:

    “you can shell the thing and leave the fron facade and two side walls, then build out the back.”

    I believe this is what the realtor means. Unfortunately, clear communication skills are not a requirement of the job.

  19. helmethofer says:

    “Do you think the realtor meant to say gut rehab?”

    Yes. I don’t see that the realtor used the term “tear down”.

  20. marco says:

    Tear down was never used in the listing and my guess is that “redeveloped” is the wrong term used. Can this property even be redeveloped into something else.

    “Facade and real estate tax freeze available to new owner.”
    What does this mean anyway. I understand the tax freeze part but what is she suggesting with the facade. That you can’t modify it?

  21. anon (tfo) says:

    “what is she suggesting with the facade”

    there are tax credits available for some properties when you place a restrictive covenant/’sell’ your facade to preserve it in perpetuity. You (and future owners) would then be bound to not change the exterior appearance and maintain it to a certain standard.

  22. Fred says:

    “Yes. I don’t see that the realtor used the term “tear down”.”

    To the right of the picture, 4th item from the top:
    Type: 3 Stories, Tear Down

  23. anon (tfo) says:

    ps: forgot to add: don’t know if that is actually being referenced, nor if it is actually available for this property. Just meant to say that such a thing exists.

  24. Groove77 says:

    @annony

    what i am saying is this place in as-is needing a full gut rehab (for some reason we dont know) is already 1.65 and considering the agent is saying if/when is finished will be a 3 million dollar home.

    the other home already finished and move in sold for 1.5mil so the difference in price and time =1.5mil for the parking.

    yes 1.5mil is an over estimate exaggeration

    but really considering condition is parking (and really only a 1 car garage) worth a minimum of a 300k price difference?

    “Not sure what you mean. The subject property (with a bungled listing, what a shocker) is listed at around $1.5, and while it needs a little updating, it has a garage. You link to a comp that recently closed for around $1.5 that ostensibly required no updating (though I imagine the buyer will do at least a few things to that kitchen), but includes no parking (not even an outdoor space).”

  25. helmethofer says:

    “Type: 3 Stories, Tear Down”

    Yeah it’s there. You have to wonder if the Seller is on board with marketing the property this way. It’s sends out terrible signals to someone with a $1.5 million budget that might actually want to live here. Who wants to buy and live in a property that some a-holes deem a teardown? Says who? Let the buyer decide. Marketing the property this way, is going to turn off some buyers who might just do cosmetic updates and live here. You see this also in places like Glencoe and Highland Park, there are some older homes there, perfectly liveable, but some obnoxious broker deems them to be tear downs, and that’s just going to exclude some potential buyers. After all, who wants to buy and then move into a house, deemed publicly by some snotnose broker/seller as not good enough? Let the buyer decide what they want to do.

  26. sonies says:

    This looks quite liveable? Or am I missing something…

  27. matthewlesko says:

    I can’t tell if this place is poorly staged or if it’s just a matter of immigrants living here.

  28. jay says:

    Unless there’s something *seriously* wrong structurally with the house (maybe the foundation?) why would this broker state as is? There is no reason to tear this down as all homes can be repaired, at a price that is. Can you imagine the litigation/hell you’d get from the neighbors and the neighborhood organizations if someone applied for a demolition permit? For a *middle* rowhouse?

    Anon is correct, you can apply for a facade donation to the Illinois Landmark Commission, but they don’t freeze your property taxes. You get a one time federal income tax deduction which can be large, that’s based on the appraised value of your house (which you have to pay for along with other fees). You nor future owners will *ever* be allowed to change the appearance of the facade (you and future owners are also responsible with maintaining it and they check yearly), but what you do behind it is your business. Good luck trying to keep this home’s soft Indian limestone facade from cracking/being totally destroyed after an interior teardown; they don’t quarry this limestone anymore. I have a facade donation and it has worked well in my situation.

    On the other hand, in order to get a real estate tax freeze which I never wanted (it’s something like for 7 years max) you have to maintain the historical integrity of the entire house, inside and out, and the agency decides the standards; my neighbor had to keep old original wallpaper in their foyer to qualify, but after the freeze was up they tore it out. The city or county or both, I forget, offers that tax break and I’m not sure you can do both – facade and tax freeze. Once the 7 years is up, your taxes skyrocket up to where your neighbors are. The idea is that the money you’re saving with the tax freeze is to be used for the historical renovation… or to be saved when your taxes spike again, you be the judge.

    Facade/tax freezes are often used by brokers as bait to sell old properties, but they rarely give you the whole story and most likely don’t know the story themselves…. they are ‘professional’ agents after all. Bad listing and bad information. Remember this agent’s name Gary, as it’s brokers like this that give the RE industry such an easily mockable reputation.

  29. JasonMChicago says:

    not a tear down. has a lot of charm.

  30. Mitch says:

    ““considering this only sold for 1.5 in move in condition and is on the same size lot”…

    ….with no parking.”

    True, but the comp place is totally redone and has what seems to be a very nice patio area with a balcony with room for a grill. I would put a prize on that more so then the garage the other place has. Though I do give it props for having the balls to display a picture with an ironing board with clothes strewn across it. What it it Bea Reardon’s boarding house or something?

  31. Andy says:

    Realtors are generally dumbasses and marketing this as a teardown is exhibit A.

    If it were my realtor this would mean instant firing. If the homeowner is behind it – well then he’s also a dumbass.

    Paging Joe Zekas, I know he did a walk through of this house.

  32. Joe Zekas says:

    I did a video walk-through of the home in July of 2011 with Meladee Hughes of Coldwell Banker, who had the listing at the time.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsicoUTbIno

    I doubt that the home is a teardown candidate. There were plans for an expansion of the home by 1,000 to 1,200 square feet, which would take it to just under 5,000 square feet. Meladee outlines the details beginning at about 4:00 in the video.

    The property tax assessment freeze is only available for a qualifying rehab, not for a teardown or for a façade-ectomy.

    The property is in a National Register district and is coded Orange on the Chicago Historic Resources Survey, which would subject it to a 90-day demolition permit delay.

  33. mitch says:

    Wow 1.5 million and the fireplace is still coal burning?

  34. ChiTownGal says:

    Why would this be an “impractical” home for an affluent family with 1 or 2 kids? I imagine that chiidren lived here once-upon-a-time when it was originally built!

  35. Groove77 says:

    “The property tax assessment freeze is only available for a qualifying rehab, not for a teardown or for a façade-ectomy.”

    i thought if you keep the facade and the view from the street to the historic preservation standards then you could still qualify for the freeze? does the freeze also include the interior?

    it would suck to still have to youe tube and knob wiring (j/k i know its a code issue)

  36. Dave M says:

    “I doubt that the home is a teardown candidate. There were plans for an expansion of the home by 1,000 to 1,200 square feet, which would take it to just under 5,000 square feet. Meladee outlines the details beginning at about 4:00 in the video.”

    I agree with Joe. No way is this a teardown candidate. Maybe one of the neighboring rowhouses could buy it and combine it into one property?

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>

« »