Lincoln Park Townhouse Sells for $78K Under 2005 Price: 2325 N. Wayne

We chattered about this 2000 square foot townhouse at 2325 N. Wayne in Lincoln Park in February 2009.

See our prior chatter here.

You can see pictures of similar townhouses in the Lakewood Commons community in our earlier chatter here.

This townhouse looked similar to the others in the prior post. There was a den on the first floor and real wood floors on the second and third floors. It also had the same 1-car garage.

It is not located on the El, the Metra or a busy street.

After several reductions, 2325 N. Wayne finally sold in early April.

It ended up selling for $78,000 under its 2005 purchase price.  It was not a short sale.

Did someone get a “deal” on this townhouse?

2325 N. Wayne: 2 bedrooms, den, 3 baths, 1 car garage, 2000 square feet

  • Sold in August 2005 for $558,000
  • Originally listed in October 2008 for $549,000
  • Reduced
  • Was listed in February 2009 for $499,000
  • Sold in April 2009 for $480,000
  • Assessments of $250 a month
  • Taxes of $5524
  • Central Air

21 Responses to “Lincoln Park Townhouse Sells for $78K Under 2005 Price: 2325 N. Wayne”

  1. Steve Heitman on April 14th, 2009 at 9:34 am

    That is a bit strange – Look at their neighbors at 2343 n Wayne. Purchased in 2006 for $550k and then resold in late 2008 for $580k.

    I guess that proves that some buy low and sell high and some buy high and sell low.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. Or some people renovate and improve the property and some dont.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  3. Steve Heitman on April 14th, 2009 at 9:53 am

    No mention of rennovation fromt he unit next door.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  4. 2343 claimed 2400 sqft; 2325 claimed 2000 sqft.

    If that is true, it seems Stevo’s (probably) correct that 2325 overpaid at $558k in ’05.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  5. Steve: Obviously the market has changed since 2008.

    The other townhouse that is in the link that we chattered about last July, 2349 N. Wayne, is still on the market and was just reduced again. Similar interiors (except the kitchen is not as upgraded, actually, as the one that just closed for $480,000.)

    2349 N. Wayne: 2 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, 2400 square feet

    Sold in September 2001 for $420,000
    Was listed in July 2008 for $559,000
    Reduced
    Was listed in January 2009 for $539,900
    Reduced again
    Now listed for $515,000
    Assessments of $273 a month
    Taxes of $5003

    2349 n wayne

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  6. “then resold in late 2008 for $580k”

    “Steve: Obviously the market has changed since 2008.”

    What do you say, SHill? “Late 2008?” LOL, more deceit. Has the market changed since 2343 N. Wayne closed 8/19/08 for $580,000?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  7. I toured these with a client and I like them. Good layouts, good room sizes, nice location, just need overall cosmetic updating.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  8. And G, Do you think the market has changed since this place went under contract in late Feb / early March?

    Honestly, I would not defend this property regardless where it sold. Who pays $550k for a 2 bedroom townhome in west LP? Where is the utility?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  9. “And G, Do you think the market has changed since this place went under contract in late Feb / early March?”

    No, it doesn’t appear to have changed much in that time.

    Here are the contract totals for the periods indicated for the Lake View condo/TH market:

    1/13-2/12 2/13-3/12 3/13-4/12
    2005 254 326 322
    2006 253 272 330
    2007 173 277 314
    2008 161 220 201
    2009 72 128 131

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  10. g its bias to compare ’09 to 05-08, how was it in 96?/99-03?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  11. “g its bias to compare ‘09 to 05-08, how was it in 96?/99-03?”

    Then you need to normalize for total units–there are a lot more condos & THs in LP as compared to 96.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  12. i thought he was just comparing to those years to show the bump from 72 to 128 is seasonal.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  13. i am down with normalized data, that’s why I put ?, it does matter and makes comparisons more relevant, we wont get to 05-08 numbers(vol.) for a while, at least a yr or 2 min.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  14. Thanks, CH. You are correct that I was showing that seasonality answers the SHill’s question about an improving market.

    Thanks, anon, for highlighting one of my favorite points about context. What looks bad here is actually much worse when considering the explosion of condo/TH units.

    revassal, if we get to 05-08 numbers in anywhere near “a yr or 2″ prices will have to drop much faster. That quick of a rebound in sales will only be achieved by a sudden price collapse reflecting a predominance of REO/short sales.

    Those numbers were for Lake View attached. Here are the historical Lincoln Park condo/TH contract numbers for each year between March 13 and April 12:

    1988 93
    1989 96
    1990 112
    1991 143
    1992 122
    1993 137
    1994 144
    1995 127
    1996 131
    1997 165
    1998 171
    1999 132
    2000 156
    2001 120
    2002 134
    2003 142
    2004 172
    2005 233
    2006 170
    2007 172
    2008 133
    2009 102

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  15. when did units explode in LV, just in 04-07? seems the avg is 140ish. only needs to rise 40%ish. but from the peak it dropped 60%ish.

    if there were plenty of units available for the 02-04 range then its not as bad and only points out that the boom is much an anomaly as the crash has been.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  16. Of course, the boom was an anomaly. It lasted from 1997-2007. The crash is just the inevitable correction.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  17. Steve Heitman on April 14th, 2009 at 7:44 pm

    Now we had an explosion of new units in LV & LP? Is it not natural that volume is down now after it being up so high just a few years back. If everyone already moved in ’05 – ’06 why would they be moving again now?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  18. Now we had an explosion of new units in LV & LP? Is it not natural that volume is down now after it being up so high just a few years back. If everyone already moved in ‘05 – ‘06 why would they be moving again now?

    huh?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  19. Steve Heitman on April 15th, 2009 at 4:59 am

    So G – Why were condo prices up in 2001, 2002, 2003,? It looks like volume was way down. You continue to say that volume leads pricing so please explain so we all understand your analysis. Should’nt prices have come down as volume dropped substantially?

    I really am curious.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  20. Steve Heitman on April 15th, 2009 at 5:05 am

    Hey G – It looks like there is one more contract written in 2009 than in 2008 when you look at the time period from 04/01 – 04/14.

    Here comes the appreciation! LOL!

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  21. $480,000 seems reasonable to me for this property. The property taxes even seem to be about $1,500 than I would expect.

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

Leave a Reply


seven × = 49