Looking for New Construction in a Midrise Building in Lincoln Park? 540 W. Webster

540 w webster finished 2017

This 2-bedroom in Webster Square at 540 W. Webster in Lincoln Park came on the market in October 2017.

Webster Place is a rare, new construction midrise building in Lincoln Park.

It has 89 units ranging from 1 to 4 bedrooms with a doorman and an attached garage.

Closings started in the summer of 2017.

This unit faces south from the third floor and has “city” views.

The listing says the finishes are “upscale.”

The kitchen has modern cabinets with luxury stainless steel appliances.

Parking is available for $55,000 extra.

Does Lincoln Park still have the cache to quickly sell a new building with 89 units?

Andrea Hebner at @Properties has the listing. See the pictures here.

Unit #310: 2 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, 1675 square feet

  • Originally listed in October 2017 for $873,000
  • Currently still listed for $873,000
  • Parking is $55,000 extra
  • Assessments of $737 a month (includes heat, a/c, gas, doorman, cable, Internet, exercise room, exterior maintenance, lawn care, scavenger and snow removal)
  • Taxes are “new”
  • Washer/Dryer in the unit
  • Central Air
  • Bedroom #1: 12×17
  • Bedroom #2: 12×14
  • Living room: 13×24

 

28 Responses to “Looking for New Construction in a Midrise Building in Lincoln Park? 540 W. Webster”

  1. That is one sad looking apartment.

    Nice efflorescence off the terrace

    The target market must be off shore money

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +8 (from 8 votes)
  2. As I understand it, much of what you might expect in a unit is an upgrade at Webster Square. The units do not come with closet build outs, nor do they come with canned/recessed lighting in the main living spaces (just halls and bathrooms). Most buyers will need to spend many thousands of dollars “upgrading” the lighting. And, the balconies are not gas-ready. Surprising for a building at this price point.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  3. How very boring. This building is priced absurdly from top to bottom. I wonder how sales are going…

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +9 (from 9 votes)
  4. Vanilla “egg crate” as my Grandfather used to say. Nothing special beyond a nice neighborhood – no views, no finishes, adequate amenities. Overpriced by several hundred thousand dollars.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +10 (from 12 votes)
  5. How unbelievably underwhelming.

    At least spend an extra couple grand to make the bathrooms marginally spa quality. They look very Menards.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +10 (from 12 votes)
  6. LOOKS LIKE SECTION 8 LOLZ!!!!
    TIME FOR A KEGGER!!!!!
    GO BLACKHAWKS!!

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 19 votes)
  7. are you shitting me with the pricing on this? with a parking spot you’re going to pay 928k for THAT?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +11 (from 11 votes)
  8. Not much else to say that hasn’t already been said. For this price point I’m surprised they didn’t attempt to stage the unit (via digital furniture or real), as keeping it empty only compounds how bland and uninspiring it is. Even the camel/poo-brown bedroom carpeting looks cheap. My vote also goes to this unit/building as a laundering mechanism for Russian/Chinese money.

    55k for parking? The f*ck outta here.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +12 (from 12 votes)
  9. https://youtu.be/7emG7bMqJiU

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)
  10. I would have sworn the first pic of the living room was a bedroom given the apparent size. The bathrooms definitely look cheap.

    https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/540-W-Webster-Ave-60614/unit-213/home/144321148

    And do people who are buying million dollar condos care about party rooms?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)
  11. Read the comments before looking at the listing. Thought “Chatterers are so critical; it couldn’t be THAT bad”. Looked at the listing. Decided that the chatterers were far too kind.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +21 (from 21 votes)
  12. Price = “Welcome to Fannntasy Island”

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +7 (from 7 votes)
  13. Pics make it look like a 1200sq ft shoe box. Listing says 1675 so hopefully this place is much larger than the pics. Congrats to the developer is they can get $900 for this place. I sure hope the buyer plans to stay put for many decades.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)
  14. Was over at the Oz playground last week, and actually thought this project looked pretty good from the outside. But it’s cramped and underwhelming on the inside, relative to the pricing.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)
  15. “Read the comments before looking at the listing. Thought “Chatterers are so critical; it couldn’t be THAT bad”. Looked at the listing. Decided that the chatterers were far too kind.”

    I believe they/we prefer Chatararti (not sure of spelling, i’ve seen various)

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)
  16. website appears to have floorplans, but I can’t seem to get one open.

    total SF per floor seems to reflect the reality of the building size, so I think that the per unit SF are basically legit–meaning the layout has to be pretty odd for 1650+ sf to look so small in the pix.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  17. What a generic looking building. It beats the old Grant Hospital in looks, but only barely. It might be better placed in downtown Arlington Heights or Des Plaines. What a shame that architects can’t seem to design pleasant buildings any longer.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)
  18. I posted my previous comment about the exterior without looking at the listing. Nothing in these interior pictures speaks of $873,000 to me. Looks like a rental. Generic as can be. And the living room is so narrow it could make a great bowling lane. “Upscale” finishes? Don’t make me laugh.

    What a shame when you think of the possibilities that could have been for this site, with its amazing location.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +11 (from 13 votes)
  19. There are some people who are willing to pay a huge premium for new. These people will be sorely disappointed if they end up having to sell any time in the next 10 years.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +6 (from 6 votes)
  20. Floorplans are definitely not viewable. On the top left corner of the website homepage it says “Webster Square Condominiums” but in the top right it says Webster Square Apartments”

    http://webstersquare.com/about/

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)
  21. “On the top left corner of the website homepage it says “Webster Square Condominiums” but in the top right it says Webster Square Apartments””

    The apartments are in the building that’s on the corner, no? 558 Webster?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)
  22. “The apartments are in the building that’s on the corner, no? 558 Webster?”

    I can’t argue that, but I guess I was focused on the non-functioning floorpan links and calling them two different things

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)
  23. Amazingly underwhelming. I thought the units would be on par with the condos at 2520 N Lakeview, that building at the old Columbus hospital site next to Mother Cabrini shrine.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 9 votes)
  24. What a flaming pile of $h@t!!!!!!!

    I find it incredibly hard to believe that the second floor 3-bed 3.5bath is actually contingent at anywhere near that price. A fool an their money…..

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +7 (from 9 votes)
  25. I had no problems with the floorplans. It claims the living/dining area is 13’ wide. Sure doesn’t look it. The BRs are decent size and there is good storage, but the living/dining/kitchen/balcony are far too small for the price point.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)
  26. Home Depot called. They want their bathroom display back.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +8 (from 8 votes)
  27. 30 years from now this building will look very similar to the 70’s buildings we all gawk at today. Can you imagine selling one of these in 10 years when the units and the building feel dated?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  28. Overpriced by at least 300k. Look at what you can get for 850k around there. Night and day!

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

Leave a Reply