Another Church Experience: 1658 W. Superior in West Town

Some of the church conversions are better than others.  I never understand it when a developer takes such a cool structure and strips out all of the unique elements.

1658-w-superior.jpg

This church conversion at 1658 W. Superior in West Town was one of the conversions where many of the original elements were kept- from  the brick to the stained glass.

1658-w-superior-_10-livingroom-_2.jpg

1658-w-superior-_10-kitchen.jpg

1658-w-superior-_10-stained-glass.jpg

1658-w-superior-_10-bedroom.jpg

 Unit #10: 2 bedrooms, 1.5 baths

  • Sold in June 2000 for $319,000
  • Sold in March 2003 for $430,000
  • Sold in December 2006 for $474,000
  • Currently listed for $549,000
  • Parking appears to be included
  • Assessments of $350 a month
  • Nick Tufano at @Properties has the listing

The stained glass is 19 feet.  There are 25 foot ceilings and turrets on either end of the unit.

19 Responses to “Another Church Experience: 1658 W. Superior in West Town”

  1. That is the coolest thing I have ever seen…

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. But as cool as it is, it is still priced almost $150,000 higher than it should be…

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  3. I LOVE this building. And if there are units in my price range (app 300k), it would be one of the few buildings to make me re-think my “renting is the best option for at least a year” stance.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  4. Hi Michael, I feel the same way. I even sent an email to the agent early yesterday (no response–they sure are in no hurry to sell), and drove to look at it last night. Seeing it up close took a lot of the urgency out of my interest, though. The neighborhood is not great. I couldn’t identify the balcony listed with the unit, but if its the one I think it is, it looks directly into the wall of a building next door. The listing also advertises a “view” of the Sears Tower; by this they can only mean if you arch your head and really peer, you might see the top of the tower peeking out over a bunch of rooftops. I also wonder about the price to heat the unit, and who would be responsible for maintaining that awesome stained glass window (whose panes are separated by wood).
    It’s a really cool unit–but given the above, I’m even more convinced it is deeply, deeply overpriced. It should be no more than $400K. Depending on how some of the maintenance questions above are resolved, possibly a bit less.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  5. Kenworthey, I was in this unit before it last sold. You have to go up into the “30 FOOT” turrets to see the views. The balcony is right off the kitchen.

    This is truly a neat little neighborhood “East Village” and is getting better as they continue to redevelop Chicago Ave…

    The stain glass and the ceiling height are the best parts. Looks like the current owner put in new appliances and stained the floors a darker color. I think he will soon realize he might have done too little too justify his currently asking price.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  6. Price dropped to $499,000. Too little, too late? I was wrong about the other really sexy loft shown on this board the other day (the one in West Loop), so maybe I’ll be wrong on this one–but I still think that this seller would be lucky to get the 2003 sale price. (Incidentally, I *never* heard back from the listing agent when I requested a showing.)

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  7. Urban Real Estate reports this unit as “contingent.” Can’t wait to see what it closes for!

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  8. Kenworthey: Yes- it’s under contract. I’ll do an update after it closes.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  9. Hey Sabrina (or anyone), did this ever close? What was price?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  10. It did NOT close so the unit did NOT sell.

    The unit was then withdrawn from the market.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  11. Unit #4 is now on market. (#10 still has not returned. My guess is the buyer cannot afford to bring money to the table, and so is simply having to stay put.) Also a 2/2, looks like a better layout/more modern bathrooms, a nice deck, but no dramatic window. They are asking $440K, assessment of $370 (looks like it does NOT include heat, which you can imagine will substantially add to the monthly costs).

    http://www.urbanrealestate.com/property/1658-W-Superior-St-Unit-10-CHICAGO-IL-60622-FIAEUU5QOI2RQ.html

    (yeah, you have to register to see it).

    Beautiful place; much more reasonably price. Anyone interested enough to look up the sales and listing history? My guess is that $440 is within 10% of the value, which I would guess to be around $400K.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  12. Per CCRD, using the PIN (ending 1004) on the site Kenworthy linked to, unit #4 sales history is:
    07/23/1999 $277,500 (from developer)
    01/20/2000 $300,000
    04/14/2004 $364,000

    Some quit claims were recorded in summer 2007.

    Parking appears to be deeded separately at PIN ending 1022.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  13. Huh. Using my handy old “2003 prices” guideline, then, even 400K is too high. Looks more like $350K.

    Will owner of #4 fall into the same unsuccessful chasing-down-the-market trap as his/her neighbor in #10? Hope not. Then again, I do wonder how many of these owners are simply trapped.

    Probably not this one, at any rate–unless they did a cash-out. #4 is simply looking for way too much appreciation over 2004 (and by “too much” I mean, of course, “any.”)

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  14. If memory serves, there were two mortgages recorded at the 2004 sale, one of which was paid off with a new mortgage in early 2005. My guess: the owner took out their downpayment so the original mortgage principal totals about $364K. IO wasn’t too common in 2004-5, so these are probably partially amortizing (and the owner has paid down a few $10K).

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  15. (Incidentally, I *never* heard back from the listing agent when I requested a showing.)

    We all know how not to waste our time…

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  16. The agent interested in not wasting his time would have told #10 not to list at $550,000. Was his time well spent chasing the market down, get a contract which couldn’t be appraised, and then just finally cancelling the listing because the owner couldn’t/wouldn’t list at a price that would actually sell?

    If the agent had shown me the place and let me make my offer, relating it to his client would have done a world of good in bringing him to reality. *And* saved him time.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  17. It does look like a really unique, one of a kind condo unit. But, yes, I too would be concerned about what my Nicor bill would be in the winter months. And then you’re saying you gotta scale up 30 feet to get the highly touted city view. Geesh. That’s probably more exercise than what I’m up for. Did anyone ever find out about the stained glass window? Is it the unit owner’s responsibility to insure it or does the association’s policy cover it? I also question the safety of the neighborhood. Last time I drove through that area there were a lot of “ethnic” restaurants. Not sure how safe I would feel taking an evening stroll.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  18. Would someone be willing to explain how to look up how much a property previously sold for? It seems like you all are pretty efficient at this type of thing.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Leave a Reply